Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In addition the united states is the only nation to have violently used nuclear weapons. We are not in the clear just because we are 'the good guys'. We must apply stringent standards of moral behaviour to ourselves as well as to 'terrorist states'.

[/ QUOTE ]
You think? Yeah, we used them. And in all the conflicts we've been in since, we've never used them. Weatherman's comment previously about us dropping the atomic bombs "without batting an eye" is just plain wrong. There have been many eyes batted then and since about whether to drop the bombs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course we havent used them since. Every major conflict we have been in since WWII there has been another government that could nuke us back, thus rendering th e nuke to little more than show.

What i ment about batting an eye is that no one has called for the only nation who has proven their will to use nukes offensivly to drop their nuclear program.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
First off they seek to destroy the government, not outright genocide. This makes them no different than the US giving Saddam a 24 hour ultimatum.

[/ QUOTE ]
If there threats are the same as the ultimatum we gave Saddam then Israel definitely has the right to blow up anything nuclear in Iran. Just as if I tell you I'm going to punch you in the face and start winding up, you don't have to wait till I hit you to fight back.

[ QUOTE ]
As I have already mentioned the Us has sponsored terrorism in numerous theaters and so Iran is once again no different.

[/ QUOTE ]
This does not help back up your claim that Iran is not rational making such threats.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course we havent used them since. Every major conflict we have been in since WWII there has been another government that could nuke us back, thus rendering th e nuke to little more than show.

[/ QUOTE ]
We have not yet fought a nuclear power in any conflict, let alone a major one, at least not that I know of. Are you living in some parallel universe (Korea/Vietnam don't count because neither had the bomb).

[ QUOTE ]
What i ment about batting an eye is that no one has called for the only nation who has proven their will to use nukes offensivly to drop their nuclear program.

[/ QUOTE ]
Define no one.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First off they seek to destroy the government, not outright genocide. This makes them no different than the US giving Saddam a 24 hour ultimatum.

[/ QUOTE ]
If there threats are the same as the ultimatum we gave Saddam then Israel definitely has the right to blow up anything nuclear in Iran. Just as if I tell you I'm going to punch you in the face and start winding up, you don't have to wait till I hit you to fight back.

[ QUOTE ]
As I have already mentioned the Us has sponsored terrorism in numerous theaters and so Iran is once again no different.

[/ QUOTE ]
This does not help back up your claim that Iran is not rational making such threats.

[/ QUOTE ]

If everything that you say makes iran an irrational actor has been done by the Us why are we allowed to have nuclear weapons and they are not?. That is the point I've been trying to get you to answer.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
If everything that you say makes iran an irrational actor has been done by the Us why are we allowed to have nuclear weapons and they are not?. That is the point I've been trying to get you to answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to respond to you one more time and then not since you have correctly been identified as trolling IMO.

It doesn't matter what happened in the 50s during the cold war. What matters is now. And now Iran is an irrational actor, and if you insist on an *if* here again regarding Iran, then you clearly are trolling or just being a propagandist. An irrational actor which Iran has made themselves does not deserve to, nor should they be allowed to, possess nuclear weapons.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
If everything that you say makes iran an irrational actor has been done by the Us why are we allowed to have nuclear weapons and they are not?.

[/ QUOTE ]
We haven't called for a country to be wiped off the map. And it has more to do with just the government. Iran's prez wants the Jews out of the middle east. This is the difference between the ultimatum given to Saddam and Iran's statements. We weren't also calling for the Iraqi people to leave Iraq.

Besides, we already have them. Who's going to take them away?

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If everything that you say makes iran an irrational actor has been done by the Us why are we allowed to have nuclear weapons and they are not?. That is the point I've been trying to get you to answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to respond to you one more time and then not since you have correctly been identified as trolling IMO.

It doesn't matter what happened in the 50s during the cold war. What matters is now. And now Iran is an irrational actor, and if you insist on an *if* here again regarding Iran, then you clearly are trolling or just being a propagandist. An irrational actor which Iran has made themselves does not deserve to, nor should they be allowed to, possess nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are so thick headed. This is not trolling.

You cannot define anything that makes Ian any more "irrational" than the US or anyother western power. When you do then you may have a point.

As an example, North Korea is a much different matter. There is a clear case for the irrationality of the North Korean government. THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID FOR IRAN.

Since Iran is not a clearly irrational actor then they have every right to pursue a nuclear power system and a nuclear arsenal.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is a clear case for the irrationality of the North Korean government. THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID FOR IRAN.

Since Iran is not a clearly irrational actor then they have every right to pursue a nuclear power system and a nuclear arsenal.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the last words I am wasting on you.

Maybe you aren't trolling and just are incapable of logical thought processes evidenced by the following:

1. Iran threatens to "wipe Israel off the map" and also supports terrorism against them.

2. Yet they aren't an irrational actor.

GET A GRIP!

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a clear case for the irrationality of the North Korean government. THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID FOR IRAN.

Since Iran is not a clearly irrational actor then they have every right to pursue a nuclear power system and a nuclear arsenal.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the last words I am wasting on you.

Maybe you aren't trolling and just are incapable of logical thought processes evidenced by the following:

1. Iran threatens to "wipe Israel off the map" and also supports terrorism against them.

2. Yet they aren't an irrational actor.

GET A GRIP!

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been shown that supporting terrorism DOES NOT MAKE A NATION IRRATIONAL. Unless you are willin g to admit that the US is an irrational actor.

Calling for the destruction of a nation and following through are two different things. China still claims taiwan as there own and makes threats but as of yet does nothing about it. They are on the UN Security concil. Obviously regarded as rational.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course we havent used them since. Every major conflict we have been in since WWII there has been another government that could nuke us back, thus rendering th e nuke to little more than show.

[/ QUOTE ]
We have not yet fought a nuclear power in any conflict, let alone a major one, at least not that I know of. Are you living in some parallel universe (Korea/Vietnam don't count because neither had the bomb).

[ QUOTE ]
What i ment about batting an eye is that no one has called for the only nation who has proven their will to use nukes offensivly to drop their nuclear program.

[/ QUOTE ]
Define no one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The cold war conflicts mostly had a US vs. USSR undertone. The US had nukes, so did the USSR. Hence there is a behind teh seens power struggle. I'm sure you know all this and so I'm not going to explain it further.

There has been no international pressure placed agianst the US to abandon any nuclear programs, even though we are the only nation in the history of the planet earth who has used a nuclear weapon on forgien soil. Im not sure what your gettingat with the "defien no one" bit, but I hopethis helps.

Re: Iran
 

theweatherman,

I am having trouble following your line in comparing the US to Iran in the following SATish sense:

1) Sending/Funding/Organizing suicide bombers to kill as many innocent people as possible is to Iranian terrorism - as - ________________ to kill as many innocent people as possible is to American terrorism.

Also, in what way would you compare the 38 or 39 country coalition's initiative to remove Saddam Hussein's unpleasant and threatening dictatorship and install a democratically elected coalition government - to - Iran's intiative to "wipe Israel off the map"?

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
The cold war conflicts mostly had a US vs. USSR undertone. The US had nukes, so did the USSR. Hence there is a behind teh seens power struggle. I'm sure you know all this and so I'm not going to explain it further.

[/ QUOTE ]
I figured the Cold War would be your fallback plan. But we weren't fighting the U.S.S.R. directly. I doubt that the Russians would be willing to nuclearly (real word?) defend the N.Koreans or Vietnamese. But take both Gulf Wars, Bosnian war, and any of the handful of other conflicts and none of them went nuclear even though one side had nukes and the other did not.

[ QUOTE ]
There has been no international pressure placed agianst the US to abandon any nuclear programs, even though we are the only nation in the history of the planet earth who has used a nuclear weapon on forgien soil.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who would apply this pressure internationally? There's certainly been domestic pressure to abandon such programs, but they're futile. So basically what pressure there's been has been to reduce the number of nukes.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
theweatherman,

I am having trouble following your line in comparing the US to Iran in the following SATish sense:

1) Sending/Funding/Organizing suicide bombers to kill as many innocent people as possible is to Iranian terrorism - as - ________________ to kill as many innocent people as possible is to American terrorism.

Also, in what way would you compare the 38 or 39 country coalition's initiative to remove Saddam Hussein's unpleasant and threatening dictatorship and install a democratically elected coalition government - to - Iran's intiative to "wipe Israel off the map"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct in stating the similarities are not absolute. The Us has sponsored anti-state terrorism. In some cases they did not control the results of this sponsorship. If the terrorists blew themselves up it would of been out of the US's hands. Becasue of this I make little difference in blindly supporting/ creating a terrorist faction, and actively supporting a suicide bombing terrorist faction.

First off Saddam's government was democratically elected. The legitimacy of the voter's intent is the only questionable part. But this is tangental.

I have not seen any remarks of how the state of Israel is to be wipedoff the map. There were allusions made to expelling the Jews, I have not heard or read anything that makes this claim. I would certainly want to read it if someone can show me. This said I see little difference between destroying Iraq's government and replacing it with a completely different one and destroying the Israeli governement and replacing it with a different one.

Don't forget that Iran would have a coalition of several Arab nations in this endevor, so coalitions are inaccurate methods of compare.

As a side note Iraq's "democratically elected government" is looking more like a theocracy all the time. If the US helps set up a government whos laws are second to those of Islam, why would Iran's probablly similar mission in the Israeli terroitories be seen any differently?

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
I figured the Cold War would be your fallback plan. But we weren't fighting the U.S.S.R. directly. I doubt that the Russians would be willing to nuclearly (real word?) defend the N.Koreans or Vietnamese. But take both Gulf Wars, Bosnian war, and any of the handful of other conflicts and none of them went nuclear even though one side had nukes and the other did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The USSR's willingness to defend the NK or Vietnamese is a sketchy point. They most certainly told the US "hands off Cuba or we will fight" following the bay of pigs. But their position in NK and Vietnam is ambigous.

Gulf war uno and the conflicts in bosnia did not call for nuclear weapons and thusly they were not used. (Personally I dont think any conflict in the middle east would call for nukes because but that is another issue.) Obviously in every conflict that we can use nukes we do not have to. We may have gotten away with it in NK but by Vietnam i doubt it. The cold war was too old and thelines were too clearly drawn.

The UN calls for states to abandon their nuclear programs all the time, they could of done this for us. Of course as permanent members of the Security council it would most certainly fail. But even the symbolic attempt would be something IMO.

Re: Iran
 

[ QUOTE ]
First off Saddam's government was democratically elected. The legitimacy of the voter's intent is the only questionable part.

[/ QUOTE ]
If pulling the "other" lever results in your rapid death, that is not a democracy. Are you really expecting to be taking seriously? You're certainly doing a good job of making yourself irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
I have not seen any remarks of how the state of Israel is to be wipedoff the map.

[/ QUOTE ]
See it now?

[ QUOTE ]
This said I see little difference between destroying Iraq's government and replacing it with a completely different one and destroying the Israeli governement and replacing it with a different one.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's because you don't want to see a difference. The Iranian president didn't just want to change governments in Israel. He wants Israel to cease to exist and the Jewish people to not live there. That's a HUGE difference.