Iraq wants to become nuclear

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Ok, if you say so. At least I don't see "american imperialism" everywhere.

I didn't mean american imperialism exclusively in the military sense, cultural and political dimension also play an important role.
You know what would be the first step in the US discussing (not imposing its will) with Iran ?
Re-estalishing diplomatic relationship between the 2 countries.

During the cold war, the Soviets were the arch enemy of the US and represented a real and concrete threat to everything the US believed in.
But still there was a Soviet embassy in Washington D.C. and a US embassy in Moscow.

Its not impossibile to normalize relationships between the US and Iran, but the americans cannot get over the whole islamic revolution thing. Its as if the clock just stopped during the hostage crisis. From then on Iran transofrmed itself into the embodiement of evil on earth.

My personal opinion (and surely it is not politically correct in any sense), is that the US picks on Iran and NK simply because the seem to be easy targets. Resolving the whole nuclear proliferation issue would require to bring Israel to the table and put them in front of the facts. It would require the 3 most volatile nations on earth, India Cina and Pakistan to abandon all nuclear ambitions. But since those countries are allies of convinience of the US, lets pretend they don't represent a threat to regional any maybe global scale.

Just my 0.02 €.

[SteamWake]

You can talk to a rock too.

About the same results except the rock doesent laugh at you.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

You can talk to a rock too.

About the same results except the rock doesent laugh at you.

No, if I discuss with you we are at the same level.
If I impose my requests on you we are not discussing in any meaningful way.

The first step in discussing with Iran is to re-establish diplomatic relationship.
But sayin' you must do this and this and this.... before we even begin to contemplate the possibility of considering you part of the civilised world is not going to work.
A 5 year old child realises this, I wonder why governments can't.

[Dowly]

^^

[Skybird]

The Soviet Union acted predictably, and was driven by her own kind of reason that the West could calculate and live with. Iran, on the othe rhand, sees many relgious fanatics being anything but reasonable. that is where your logic fails you, Goldorak. The model of the cold war USA-USSR cannot be applied to the situation with Iran. Iran does not operate by the same rational mechanisms like the USSR. Hysteric clerics do even less.

The most decisive difference between Christian and Islamic culture: an Islam martyrdom has a solid tradition, self-sacrifice is seen by Quran as a virtue and example worth to be followed. Therefore, Muslim armies in the medieval fought with inferior weapins and arms, but superior spirits an higher morale, because the Christian culture does not know this will to self-sacrifice, and is horrified by it. Different to them, it sees the protection of the individual life as the highest virtue, not suicidal martyrdom.

You cannot have a reasonable debate with soembody willing to become a martyr, for him, it is always all or nothing at all. You cannot trade, you cannot meet on basis of a compromise. When somebody tells you he wants it all from you even if it costs his life, then you cannot stop this person any different way than killing him. A treaty, a deal, a compromise will fail to attract him for long. Also, Quran rules that there shall be no treaties and cease fires with the infidels for longer than just one or two years, only if Islam is not in a position to pres son it is acceptable to have treaties with longer duration. In Islamic understanding, treaties with the infidels are not focussing on achcieving a balance and a lasting peace, but to buy time to restrengthen the forces of Islam until they are strong enough to strike again and then hoefully will overcome the infidel opposition. Thgis is something that often gets overseen or intentionally ignorred in the West. A status of peace is NEVER a status of peace in Islam, but only a temporary cease-fire used to prepare the next offensive.

Westerners and Christians usually do not want to see this. It killes some of their most precious illusions.

[goldorak]

Skybird, the Sovet Union did not act predictably.
The Cuban missile crisis is one big proof that invalidates your argument.
As well as the 1983 Able Archer Nato exercise that was interpreted by the Soviets as a prelude to war.
If the cold war finished without hundreds of giant mushrooms over our heads is mostly because of luck.


Many people conviniently have forgotten how close the cold war came to being hot.

[SteamWake]

Good old onion

Warning humor follows !

http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...plomatic_talks

[Skybird]

Yes, that cuba did not become a hot war was sheer luck, since it was out of control. Beside the Cuba incident, there have been 40 more years were mutual deterrance worked in the basis of cold-blooded calculation and using reason to also correctly assess what the other would do "in case of", and what not. but with a nuzclear arms race in the Golf region, you talk about cultural clashes between shia and sunni, and old civil war that is that is raging since over 1000 years, you talk about different mentality, temper, and the incalculatable hysteria of relgious fanatism and fatalistic wordviews.

What worked in the cold ar, will not work in an nuke race at the Gulf. and i leave out that the USSR was a stable poltical entitity whith strict control over it'S etzhnic groupos and territories. This cannot be said about several of the actors in the area of interest regarding a gul nuke race. Saudi-Arabia is slowly destabilising, Syria already is gambling, Turkey turns increasingly nationalistic, Iraq and Pakistan are failed states, Egypt's future is uncertain once Mubarak dies or leaves office (the everything-but-democratic orthodox Islamists are ever growing in power thanks to giving them access to democratic elections). All this thinlking about geostrategic influence spieced up by the occaisonal irrational religious outburst and Islamic fatalism.

The mechanisms of the cold war will not work in such a climate. it's not cold enough there.

I have a prominent supporter of this view of mine: Kissinger voiced exactly the same concerns and doubts in interviews that I have summed up here. He also says very clearly that the logic of the cold war between the US and the USSR will not work in the middle East, but that allowing an arms race down there will see the greatest probability for an outcome of total desaster.

Until then, nuclear armed Iran holds another most dominant threat: nuclear proliferation.

And that means that all the West has become utmost susceptible to blackmail.

BTW, the attempt to install nukes on Cuba was a very reasonable attempt. I would have tried the same, if I were the Russians. The possible jackpot was very huge so that it justified to take a risk. If it would have been successful, the balance of the game would have very significantly shifted. But when it went off and both sides tried to find a way to save their faces, things got out of control - not before. A gamble can go wrong - that's what makes it a gamble.

A nuclear arms race in the ME is not so much a gamble, or a thing of cold rational calculation. It is very much a guarantee for things going wrong. the ME states and their cultural background are not the USSR and Europe and the US.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Skybird, the Sovet Union did not act predictably.
The Cuban missile crisis is one big proof that invalidates your argument.
As well as the 1983 Able Archer Nato exercise that was interpreted by the Soviets as a prelude to war.
If the cold war finished without hundreds of giant mushrooms over our heads is mostly because of luck.


Many people conviniently have forgotten how close the cold war came to being hot.

Khruschev backed down, because he thought Kennedy was crazy and would really start a war.

I'm just glad somebody got nuked before those weapons became more powerful. Now mankind know just how powerful these weapons are and you'd be crazy to actually use them.

I'll add to that, not only will god protect them, they might even speed up his return. (I think that's the idea anyway)

That sounds just like the Christian religious right and some of the Jewish Zionists.
Its wierd, there are two nuclear armed countries who recently started wars after their leaders had a word with god. One of those countries had a VP candidate whose pastor preached that nuclear holocaust was at hand to remove the ungodly from everywhere apart from Israel and Alaska. Then you have another nuclear armed country which needs the approval of religious freaks just to exist, religious freaks who think the sole reason for their actions and their countries existance is to bring about the second coming after a global slaughter.
Yet them crazy freaks seem to get a free pass here as the Iranian freaks are the real crazy ones.

I suppose terrorism deserves a mention, as all those countries have a big history of supporting it too.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Like hell nobody does. Instead of pontificating that only the US and US-approved states should have the bomb, why don't the follwing list of countries dismamtle their nuclear arsenals ? Usa, GB, France, China, Russia , India, Pakistan (oh yes a country much less reliable than Iran) and Israel (NK is a joke so I don't even mention it) ?

First lets start with some facts. Nuclear Weapon stockpiles

The leaders in that category are the US and Russia, who might I add have signed several treaties aimed at arms reduction. List of Nuclear Arms Treaties.By saying that you won't include North Korea, you invalidate your entire argument. They have weapons just like everybody else on the list.

What's good for us is not good for the rest of you it seems.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, the US is not the world's dictator. Every country that wants and has the technological means and money to initiate a nuclear program civil and military should do so.
What will keep them in line is nuclear deterrance.
Hey it has kept in line the US and the Soviet Union for over half a century so it works. And I surely won't panick if Iran one day announces to the world that it posseses a nuclear arsenal.

I agree with you that the US is not the worlds dictator, but we are a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Lets take your country Italy for example. I'm quite sure that you have the means to go nuclear if so desired. Do you believe Italy should have the bomb as well, and for what reason? Nuclear Deterrence will only work if Iran or Iraq does not intend on exporting (legally or otherwise) fissile material to a third party, and to sustain a nuclear arsenal for itself. And I would say cooler heads has kept the US and the Soviet Union in line for half a century, not just deterrence.

Originally Posted by goldorak

Oh so you worry about religous fanatism.
What do you think about Pakistan ? I remember that India and Pakistan had already engaged in border wars and sometimes they even talked about deploying nuclear weapons. Thats a real escalation, not the North Koreans having 2 tiny bombs with no means to deliver it half way around the world.
Iran is not the world's scapegoat and neither is North Korea.

If I recall correctly India and Pakistan had a "Test off" where they were doing bomb tests during one of those border disputes. I would like to say that the only one that would have been affected by a nuclear exchange would have been India and Pakistan, but I think that's a little wishful thinking. Now for North Korea they don't have to bomb the US directly. They are more than capable of bombing South Korea or Japan, which would elicit a response from the US. What that response would be would be hard to say. What are North Korea and Iran a scapegoat for? Am I missing out on some sort of salacious scandal?

Now if you look at the middle east, yes the Iranians have "talked about wiping Israel", but its just talks. Facts not words are important. And the facts are that over the last 30 years, Iran is one of the only countries to never have attacked Israel. Syria yes. Egypt yes. Gordan yes.

Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all border Israel. It's a little easier to attack a country when you border it. So it stands to reason that Iran would have a harder time attacking.

Iraq had attacked Iran in one of the bloodiest wars ever seen, Iraq had gased it own citizens, it has attacked and conquered Kuwait. Israel has attacked Iraq, invaded southern Lebanon etc... And considering Israel has a pretty consistent nuclear arsenal if you want a nuclear free region then it is Israel that has to dismantle its arsenal. But you cannot fault Iran for wanting a nuclear arsenal of its own. It just makes perfect sense.

Israel to the best of my recollection has never made any statement regarding a first strike but maintains its arsenal as a defensive measure against attacking countries. And with a track record like you stated for Iraq, would anyone trust Iraq with nuclear weapons?

The conspiracy theories accorxding to which once Iran gains nuclear weapons it will give them somehow to Hezbollah or other terrorist groups is just nonsense. If you think this is a possibility than for god's sake you better be scared of the Pakistani situation. But no, worse countries than Iran are allowed to have the bomb, and it is these countries that represent a real danger.

Any country is capable of nuclear proliferation, some just seem to be more willing to proliferate than others (i.e. China and North Korea).

Originally Posted by goldorak

If you really think that a single man (in this case Ahmadinejad) can launch single handly a nuclear strike on Israel or any other country, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Even in the case of the US, the commander in chief alone cannot launch a nuclear strike. The same thing in GB, France, Russia or Cina or every other nation that posses a nuclear arsenal.

Just because you develop nuclear weapons doesn't mean they come with their own rules. Any country can setup any system it wants pertaining to the release of nuclear weapons. So how much for that bridge and where is it?

Originally Posted by goldorak

My personal opinion (and surely it is not politically correct in any sense), is that the US picks on Iran and NK simply because the seem to be easy targets.

Not because they have lunatics in power? And I would hardly call political pressure from more than just the US as picking on an easy target.

Resolving the whole nuclear proliferation issue would require to bring Israel to the table and put them in front of the facts.

The fact that they are a Jewish state surrounded by Muslim countries that have attacked them repeatedly?

It would require the 3 most volatile nations on earth, India Cina and Pakistan to abandon all nuclear ambitions. But since those countries are allies of convinience of the US, lets pretend they don't represent a threat to regional any maybe global scale.

What sort of alliance does the US have with China? India? Pakistan is letting us use some of their Real Estate but for a mutual interest, that's about the only thing close to an alliance there.

So you believe anything they tell you.

So are you trying to claim that the applications don't exist?
Or are you just responding to a post without responding to a post?

i wonder why so many analysts then warn of a regional nuclear arms race if Iran becomes nuclear

Ah I see, you are not taking the thinking "one step further" you are making a huge leap from one subject to another.
If you want to talk of thinking one step further then start at the beginning of the regional arms race, don't just jump off from a fictitious middle point.

[CaptainHaplo]

Goldorak,

"Iran is one of the few middle eastern countries to not actually attack Israel."

Well your right, but to use that fact to claim that they wouldn't with a nuke is the height of disingenuous. The only reason that Israel and Iran have never had a conventional war is quite simple....

They lack a common border.

With a delivery device, this obstacle is removed. No Arab nation is going to allow another nation to run its conventional forces right through its middle so it can attack Israel. They distrust each other too much for that. But a nuke delivery vehicle, while presenting its own issues, is like allowing the use of airspace to them.

Instead of recognizing this simple fact, and the reality that the regimes in the region don't want a nuclear Iran, you want to put the survival of the world in the hands of everyone, meaning a nuclear launch will be decided by whatever leader is the LEAST stable.

Thankfully, you don't make decisions on a world stage is all I can say.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Goldorak,

"Iran is one of the few middle eastern countries to not actually attack Israel."

Well your right, but to use that fact to claim that they wouldn't with a nuke is the height of disingenuous. The only reason that Israel and Iran have never had a conventional war is quite simple....

They lack a common border.

And yet they could have formed an alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria to attack Israel and didn't. You don't have to border a country to declare war on it. Iran could have just as well send troops with the Egyptians/Jordanians/Syrians. Offered logistical support, intelligence and who knows what else.
But they didn't.

With a delivery device, this obstacle is removed. No Arab nation is going to allow another nation to run its conventional forces right through its middle so it can attack Israel. They distrust each other too much for that. But a nuke delivery vehicle, while presenting its own issues, is like allowing the use of airspace to them.

Of course, the first thing the Iranians will do is launch a nuclear strike on Israel oblivious to the fact that Israel would counterstrike back and most assuredley destroy Iran. Lets be realistic here. Iran wants to be a regional power as much as Israel is. And India and Pakistan.

Instead of recognizing this simple fact, and the reality that the regimes in the region don't want a nuclear Iran, you want to put the survival of the world in the hands of everyone, meaning a nuclear launch will be decided by whatever leader is the LEAST stable.

Its incredibile, you all think that Iran = Ahmadinejad. Its like me saying that the american president could do whatever he wants oblivous to the different check and balances that permeat the US government.
You may not like Iran because its an islamic republic, that there are checks and balances over there as well. Just because you think they are all some kind of brain washed potentially suicide bombers doesn't make it so. And the events after the last Iranian election shows this quite well.

The survival of the world, you are talking about the survival of the world.
Then lets start by dismantling the thousands of nuclear warheads that Russia and the US still have. Then the hundreds of warheads the French, British and Cinese have. Israel to follow and of course India and Pakistan. And then we can start to be preocupied by NK that has 2 little atomic bombs and Iran that has nothing at all.

But of course this will never happen since most countries that have gained entrance into the nuclear club realise just how much power and prestige it is to have them. And another reason much more important, countries that have nuclear weapons are not invaded. The US launched a massive war on Iraq on the basis of nuclear weapons that were inexistant, and yet they can't do squat to North Korea that has 2 puny little bombs. It goes a long way in showing that to keep the US off your country you better have working weapons of mass destruction.

Thankfully, you don't make decisions on a world stage is all I can say.

You're right, we have to believe that our leaders are in some way graced by a higher intuition in the affairs of the world. Unfortunately I don't have this optimism as history has shown time and time again just how screwed up our democratic leaders can be.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by goldorak

And yet they could have formed an alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria to attack Israel and didn't. You don't have to border a country to declare war on it. Iran could have just as well send troops with the Egyptians/Jordanians/Syrians. Offered logistical support, intelligence and who knows what else.
But they didn't.

Wrong. Special commandos, instructors and other kinds of experts are supporting various anti-Western and terror groupos thorughout the area. On this level, Iran already is engaged in ongoing active warfare against Israel. Iran plays a big hand in Lebanon politics, and delivers money and weapons, explosives and ammunition to Hezbollah, as well as to palestinian Hamas. They do their best to spread destabilisation and violence in the region. not to mention Iraq, and who knows to what degree they have their hands, like Pakistan, in Afghanistan as well.

Of course, the first thing the Iranians will do is launch a nuclear strike on Israel oblivious to the fact that Israel would counterstrike back and most assuredley destroy Iran. Lets be realistic here. Iran wants to be a regional power as much as Israel is. And India and Pakistan.

They want a dominant position from which they also can blackmail Wetsern policy-making. Their most prominent rival is probably is Turkey. as much as they want immunity from US miliztary attacks by waving the nuclear spear, which is a form of defensive strat6egy, they also want to expand their influence in the region, kick back Saudi influence (the sunni-Shia thing), and bless the region and beyond with the fortune of shia islam. Persians are no Arabs, and the animosity between Shia and sunni very much manifestates along this ethnic borderline. the mutual hostility is many centuries old.

Maybe you find it acceptable to give such a country the option to become dominant and to intimidate and blackmail others, incolduing the West. Maybe you are also accepting to pay a price for this: proliferation to non-goivernmental Islamic groups, and nations hostile to the West. And maybe you also think that the additonal price of a nuclear arms race and the high danger of nuclear war coming from it also is acceptable.

But I would like to know what you think we have gained by making these "investements". Is there anything - beyond the result of not having confronted Iran while there was time? I get the impression that avoiding confrontation with Iran is a self-purpose for you that alone alrerady justfiies all the risks and disadvantages mentioned here, even higher longterm costs than such a confrontation would be in itself. You put a lot of effort into arguing why it is okay for Iran moving into this position thta is so very favourable for it. But I want to know what positives the West do gain by accepting that. Very big risks and a high blood toll from increasing Iran-sponsores terror you burden onto our and the world's shoulder - for what? What positive you think you do gain by that?

Its incredibile, you all think that Iran = Ahmadinejad. Its like me saying that the american president could do whatever he wants oblivous to the different check and balances that permeat the US government.
You may not like Iran because its an islamic republic, that there are checks and balances over there as well. Just because you think they are all some kind of brain washed potentially suicide bombers doesn't make it so. And the events after the last Iranian election shows this quite well.

I think I have expressed quite a more differentiated view of mine on Iran in the past.

The survival of the world, you are talking about the survival of the world.
Then lets start by dismantling the thousands of nuclear warheads that Russia and the US still have. Then the hundreds of warheads the French, British and Cinese have. Israel to follow and of course India and Pakistan. And then we can start to be preocupied by NK that has 2 little atomic bombs and Iran that has nothing at all.

Now you start to mistake emotional arousal with argument. the aboe makes no sense in itself. Dismantling russian and American nuclear arsenals does not make world peace safer in the face of challengers like iran, north korea, Islam in general. It only makes opponents of russia and America stronger. In how far that should help world peace, escapes me. negotiating and arguing from a psotion of weakness, is no virtue, and never allowes for strong results in your favour. It means you are weak and the other must not take oyu that serious, and nothing else. the world is a grim place. One can regret it or not, but that does not chnage it. Never has good will alone prevented the rogues going to war if it served their interest. Its better to hack off their hand they swing their sword with. Or even better: deny them access to any sword or spear or knife from the beginning on, and cutting off theirt tongue so that they cannot command others to do the killing in their place.

That is what serves world peace: not to tolerate but to confront evil.

But of course this will never happen since most countries that have gained entrance into the nuclear club realise just how much power and prestige it is to have them. And another reason much more important, countries that have nuclear weapons are not invaded. The US launched a massive war on Iraq on the basis of nuclear weapons that were inexistant, and yet they can't do squat to North Korea that has 2 puny little bombs. It goes a long way in showing that to keep the US off your country you better have working weapons of mass destruction.

Nice to see being quoted like that. You are absolutely correct here. But in how far does this change what I criticise you for? That Iran wants more prestige, is natural, every nation wnats that. But why is it favourable for us in this case to allow it happening by letting them gain nuclear weapons?

You're right, we have to believe that our leaders are in some way graced by a higher intuition in the affairs of the world. Unfortunately I don't have this optimism as history has shown time and time again just how screwed up our democratic leaders can be.

Not to mention how screwed the intermingling of politics and religion can be. You correctly question the reaosn of western "democracies". But why you take the reason of theocratic regimes as granted, I do not understand.

Sen. M. Gravel said something during his campaigning for the pöresidency, a remark he published on the theme of growing religious resistance to secularism in the US. Originally deriving from that context, the following quote also remains true in a different, wider context. He said:

" (...) otherwise you are taking the oppressive nature of the state, marrying it with the oppressive nature of religion - and that is the ultimate opression on human beings."

This is what you have in countries like Saudi Arabia and iran, where you see the opressive nature of religion not only being an optional choice, but a collective duty.

And such a constellation you want to put your trust into...?You are right, Ahmadinejadh is not all of Iran, in fact he is relatively unimportant, in fact the theocracy even keeps him on a short line, because his aggressive rehtorics draw unwanted attention towards the Iranian nuclear program. the rela power lies with the mullahs.

Again my question - this is what you want to put your trust into...? Religious fanatics preaching the most totalitarian, aggressive, supremacist world ideology there is...?