When Israel developed nukes, the US turned a blind eye. When Pakistan developed nukes, the US turned a blind eye. Likewise India. Now Iran is surounded by 6 nuclear powers on all sides. And you're trying to say they don't have the right to pursue nukes? What kind of hypocrisy is that?

If we don't want Iran to have nukes, then first let's take the nukes away from Israel, Pakistan and India. And sign a non-aggression treaty with Iran to mollify our own threat (like what we're pursuing in N Korea).

The N Korea example is enlightening- the way to prevent people from deveoping nukes is to STOP THREATENING THEM. Yes- you can call it nuclear blackmail. That's the small price we pay for being the head bully and hypocrite in chief of the 'nuclear club'.

Iran and India were condemned by the US after they tested their nukes, and we supported sanctions against them. (Though those have now run their course)

We can't "take" nukes away from any country, though it would be nice.

We didn't stop north korea from developing weapons. They did so in order to secure the economic deal we're giving them, as well as to prove that they're a significant power.

No one has a right to pursue nuclear weapons.

Looney tunes!

1) Iran maintains it is only interested in nuclear power, but even if that were not true,

2) What can Iran do with a few nukes, anyway? Very little. Frankly, no one can use nukes unless they wish to destroy all human and mammalian life on this planet.

3) You cliam that because Iran hates Israel, they cannot have nukes. Idiot, every man woman and child in the Middle East hates Israel, and you would too, if somone came and stole MIssissipi from the USA and rammed that theft down our throats and then made us pariahs for even MENTIONING the fact it was stolen, plus took half of Alabama and parts of Arkansas to boot and settled them running us off our own land!

At least let them have their hate; they do not have the land and will not get it back.

4) You control freaks CANNOT predict what will happen, so stop trying, and stop fear mongering. If we help people. things will turn out well, it has always been so.

4) Iran is inherently more powerful than Iraq, but it is not even remotely capable of doing much in the world, as compared, say, to Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan etc. Why do you PRETEND it is so powerful?

etc.

My brain is weary from answering the stupid hypotehticals of all thse right wing paranoid schizophrenics.

I think you posted in the wrong thread, because no one here said anything remotely right-wing, and no one claimed that Iran can't have nuked because they hate israel.

But I will respond by saying that while Iran may or may not be pursuing nuclear weapons, the way in which they are going about their nuclear program is damaging non-proliferation efforts. Nuclear non-proliferation is a non-partisan issue, and I think it is possibly the only issue regarding US foreign policy that actually "matters" in the long run.

Non-proliferation means condemning Israel for its nuclear arsenal, which is often done. It also means not allowing any nation, friend or foe, to acquire nuclear weapons.

What can Iran do with "a few nukes?" Well, the chance of a nuclear exchange with israel comes to mind. Not to mention that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and perhaps Turkey or Syria will become much more interested in developing their own arsenals. Thats not fear mongering, its realism.

Obviously, bombing isn't the right answer, but neither is allowing them to have nukes. If we only had to worry about China, Russia, and Japan (Iran is about comparable to Indonesia), then the world would be much simpler. But any country that has nuclear weapons automatically gains more leverage over its neighbors. Its never a good thing.

No one should have nuclear weapons. But we're not in the rollback phase - we're still trying to contain their spread.

America is the only country that has dropped two nuclear bombs on civilians. America has the greatest nuclear arsenal in the world. As a prior post mentioned everyone played dead in America when Israel introduced nuclear weapons into the mix of the Middle East.

If you lived in Iran would you be uttering words that are never heard in America. "Nuclear weapons" are not for us?.

When the world blows up and a few people are left to ponder how they got to be nuclear survivors the finger will be pointed to the creators of the nuclear bomb.

"Foreign Policy" America has no "Foreign policy".

Has anyone heard Bush mention Zimbabwe, Sudan, Saudia Aarbia, Egypt, Pakistan, Uzbakistan and the word "democracy"?.

Where would Afghanistan be today if we had not marched into Iraq?.

"No one has a right to pursue nuclear weapons."

On the contrary. Everyone has the right to pursue anything they bloody well please, so long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. International agreements to the contrary are completely voluntary.

If we want Iran to not pursue nuclear capability, we need to either offer them sufficient incentives to get them to stop or present a credible threat of reprisal if they do not stop. Right now, we have done neither. And considering our treatment of North Korea, India and Pakistan, we've made nuclear status look extremely inviting to the Iranians.

If Iran is pursuing nuclear energy, and not nukes, they are to be applauded because they will be emitting less green house gasses by using nuclear energy.

If they are building nuclear weapons, however, we have only two recourses. First, everyone--including the United States--would need to agree to stop building and testing new nuclear weapons and disassemble the existing ones.

The second approach is the carrot and stick method we used with the Soviets. In this doomsday scenario, Iran and other hostile nations would be warned that they would be obliterated if they ever launch a nuclear weapon. We would have to pray that the Iranian government would choose life over complete destruction.

Candoxx, since you used the term "stupid hypotehticals [sic], it seem only fair to ask you about this one:

3) You cliam that because Iran hates Israel, they cannot have nukes. Idiot, every man woman and child in the Middle East hates you would too, If somone came and stole MIssissipi from the USA and rammed that theft down our throats and then made us pariahs for even MENTIONING the fact it was stolen, plus took half of Alabama and parts of Arkansas to boot and settled them running us off our own land!

Are you really ignorant of the fact that Jews have lived in the Mideast for thousands of years (before there was an Islam to call them infidels) and that they actually owned the land they lived on when Israel was founded?. The Palestinians largely "ran" themselves out of Israel, siding with those who attacked it at its birth. (Compare that with the way Arab countries actually ran Jews out and expropriated their property, many of whom settled in Israel.)

The issue isn't even one of ownership, but of jurisdiction and sovereignty. In Jeffersonian terms, Israel's respect for the rights of all its citizens, including Arab citizens who enjoy rights in Israel that are non-existent elsewhere in the Mideast, makes Israel the most legitimate if not the only legitimate state in the region.

Iran makes its living helping people emit greenhouse gases! Their country would disintegrate over night if they stopped doing so. They are desperately trying to pump more oil, to produce more greenhouse gases, in part to pay for arming Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Mehdi Army.

A big reason the world is so worried about Islamic nukes is that martyrdom is a key feature of that religion. I.e., that deterrence might not work with fanatics like Ahmadinejad.

The world is decades away from eliminating nukes, although both the US and Russia have disassembled some already.

You didn't mention the carrot, which seems more relevant than the stick. It is important, and it is that Iran could move from outsider like Syria, to insider like Pakistan and Turkey by getting with the program. Bush has shown he would accept that (as he has with North Korea.)

icemilkcoffee:

When Israel developed nukes, the US turned a blind eye. When Pakistan developed nukes, the US turned a blind eye. Likewise India.

We did no such thing. However, we didn't blow them up it that's what you're talking about.

icemilkcoffee:

Now Iran is surounded by 6 nuclear powers on all sides. And you're trying to say they don't have the right to pursue nukes? What kind of hypocrisy is that?

The hypocrisy is that we have them and we don't want others to have them. But hypocrisy isn't always bad. The simple reason is that we've demonstrated that we won't use our nukes except in circumstances that we haven't seen in 60 years. Iran's leaders keep talking apocalyptically about the future. That makes everybody justifiably nervous.

icemilkcoffee:

If we don't want Iran to have nukes, then first let's take the nukes away from Israel, Pakistan and India. And sign a non-aggression treaty with Iran to mollify our own threat (like what we're pursuing in N Korea).

I think Bush would go along with a North Korea-style solution. The problem is that the Iranians have shown no interest in doing so, and don't have the lash of mass starvation to compel them towards reasonable action. NK didn't require denuclearization around it to reform (nor did Libya). Iran can take the same course.

icemilkcoffee:

The N Korea example is enlightening- the way to prevent people from deveoping nukes is to STOP THREATENING THEM.

We aren't threatening them about anything except their rogue behavior. We're not saying "give us your oil or we'll nuke you". We're staying "stop destabilizing your neighbors, stop building nukes, stop threatening Israel".

icemilkcoffee:

Yes- you can call it nuclear blackmail. That's the small price we pay for being the head bully and hypocrite in chief of the 'nuclear club'.

If I may ask, why is hypocrisy such a big crime. It's been an often useful feature of human relations since people learned how to talk.

Arabs have been living in the Middle East for thousands of years too. But when Israel was founded most of the Jews there were settlers who had arrived recently, and Jews made up only 30% of the total population. They were awarded 55% of the land, which was a huge injustice to begin with, but they ended up with much more.

The Palestinians did not flee Israel to join the enemy. They played a very minor role in that war. They were either physically forced out by Jewish militias, or they fled in fear upon hearing stories of massacres. The strategy of ethnic cleansing in order to secure as much land with as few Arabs as possible has been a consistent thread running through Zionist and later Israeli policy since the 19th century. That strategy has never been abandoned.

Israel’s Arab citizens do not have the same rights as its Jewish citizens at all. This is because it is against the interests of Jews for Israel to be a democratic state. Israel is not the most legitimate, but rather the most defiant and most aggressive state in the region. Compare this to Iran, where the minority of Jews are proud to be Iranian citizens, and where they refuse to leave Iran for Israel, despite Israel’s offers of full citizenship and financial reward.

Varian, this last post of yours was jaw-dropping. Do you think Israel has controlled the west bank since its foundation? Yes, the rhetoric is often about taking all of Palestine back, especially Jerusalem, but Israel could make peace tomorrow if it just gave back the west bank -- ALL OF IT, returned to the green line for its border and stopped encroaching on teh Old City. You find Israel Jeffersonian? Jefferson the slave owner who left a string of black bastards behind him: THAT Jefferson? Right.

The simple reason is that we've demonstrated that we won't use our nukes except in circumstances that we haven't seen in 60 years. Iran's leaders keep talking apocalyptically about the future. That makes everybody justifiably nervous.

What circumstances were those? A defeated enemy ready to negotiate terms of surrender? An ally whose global vision did not coincide with that of the US?

In fact, there have been proposals regarding the use of nukes in Iran, though the circumstances now are nothing like they were 60 years ago.

Iran’s president has sought to encourage his people, and Muslims everywhere threatened by Israel, by suggesting that Israel’s murderous government will not last forever. The US, on the other hand, has invaded and destroyed Iraq, and it supports the Israeli government with substantial military aid as well as diplomatic protection from the international community.

Iran arms Hezbollah? Good! More power to them! Hopefully Hezbollah will be able to withstand the next Israeli attack. But unfortunately nobody other than the US would be able to prevent the Israeli military from murdering Lebanese citizens again.

I don't often see such bollixed logic as yours. Unpacking...

thewikked:

What circumstances were those? A defeated enemy ready to negotiate terms of surrender? An ally whose global vision did not coincide with that of the US?

I can't think what this means, except perhaps that Truman's decision was bad, because it wasn't based on the circumstances. If so, then we must have had leaders with better judgment since then, because despite similar circumstances, they didn't go nuclear.

thewikked:

In fact, there have been proposals regarding the use of nukes in Iran, though the circumstances now are nothing like they were 60 years ago.

There have been proposals to nuke lots of people over the years. But the, uh, circumstances never warranted putting them into operation.

thewikked:

Iran’s president has sought to encourage his people, and Muslims everywhere threatened by Israel

What Muslims is Israel threatening, other than those who shoot rockets at it and/or kidnap its citizens?

thewikked:

The US, on the other hand, has invaded and destroyed Iraq, and it supports the Israeli government with substantial military aid as well as diplomatic protection from the international community.

The US gives military aid to Muslim nations as well, and while we certainly invaded Iraq, that country's destroyers don't wear uniforms.

thewikked:

Iran arms Hezbollah? Good! More power to them! Hopefully Hezbollah will be able to withstand the next Israeli attack.

Didn't Israel attack after Hezbollah attacked it?

thewikked:

But unfortunately nobody other than the US would be able to prevent the Israeli military from murdering Lebanese citizens again.

And who will stop Hezbollah? Iran?

Bollixed? I love that! Well, let’s go through it then. Your statement was that

…we've demonstrated that we won't use our nukes except in circumstances that we haven't seen in 60 years.

And I questioned what circumstances those were. At the time, the US faced a defeated enemy ready to surrender, and an ally whose global vision did not coincide with that of the US. You cannot think what this means? It means that Japan was defeated and destroyed, and that Stalin’s vision for the post war period did not coincide with that of the US. The US dropped bombs on Japan then, murdering civilians quite willingly, as a show of strength of just what the US was capable of doing and willing to do. So, I guess what you are saying is that only in those circumstances the US will use nukes?

Truman’s decision was not bad because it was not based on the circumstances. It was bad because it launched one of the greatest terrorist attacks the world has ever seen.

There have been proposals to nuke Iran, and there has been a ridiculous campaign in the US to drum up support for an attack on Iran, possibly using nukes. The, uh, circumstances are similar to the build up to the invasion of Iraq. Again, the US strategy is to lie, spread fear, and ignore evidence that contradicts its simplistic narrative.

Israel is threatening the Muslims in the Palestinian Occupied Territories whom they have been oppressing and murdering for several decades. They threaten their own Arab citizens as well, discriminating against them, arresting them under false pretences, and suppressing their non-violent demonstrations with violence.

They have been threatening Iran for years and have been encouraging the US to attack Iran since before the invasion of Iraq. Rockets? Good one. How much damage have these rockets done over the years?

The destroyers of Iraq wear different uniforms and they are there for different reasons. Bush does not wear a military uniform, except when he wants to declare Mission Accomplished, but he is responsible for much of the destruction. His government supports a regime that has militias murdering Iraqis because they are of a different sect of Islam.

It is very convenient to date the time of the last war in Lebanon to Hezbollah’s capture of two soldiers and killing of three others. But it was Israel’s refusal to completely withdraw from Lebanon, as well as its own abduction of Lebanense prisoners, that was the cause of the attack. The attack was on a military target as well, unlike most of the attacks by Israel’s military.

Hopefully nobody stops Hezbollah from resisting Israeli attacks next time. If they are fortunate, their weapons will be more advanced and some day Israel will give up its dream of being the only state in the region with any influence or power. But as long as the US supports Israel in its violence against Muslims, there is little chance of that happening.