Should the World allow Iran to become a Nuclear Power?

[Coda]

Before I get flammed, I feel that this should go through the UN and with a binding vote. Given their propensity to fund terrorist organizations, the world cannot simply stand around and allow them to develop this capacity.

It's clear that the worlds intelligence organizations cannot be trusted to tell us what's going on inside their country, we need more/better verification. If they do an underground test, this would be enough evidence to me to move forward with severe sanctions followed soon after with military action.

Fast forward 3 years from now, President Hillary Clinton is at the wheel and the democrats have taken over the house and senate. The underground test is a success and the world is faced with this decision. Where do you stand?

(Dems are in power in this example only because I've been labeled as a far far right wing fanatic. I wanted to take our current political climate off the table).

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by Coda

Fast forward 3 years from now, President Hillary Clinton is at the wheel and the democrats have taken over the house and senate. The underground test is a success and the world is faced with this decision. Where do you stand?

Faced with what decision?

[Gary Sisco]

Did "the world" allow any of the other nuclear powers to become nuclear powers?

Frankly, if one can, esp the only one that's actually used the weapons ... Never mind the one that's used them and, as official policy today, has publicly put the world on notice that it's not adverse to using them again, even in a "pre-emptive" strike (based presumably on intelligence gathered by the same dipshits that have failed so miserably 'til now) ...

Well, I'm not going to get into this "we have nukes but you cannot" business.

Israel has nukes. No one's jumping up and down about it. Everyone knows it.

Takes some arrogance to go around telling everyone else what they can do and can't do, if you ask me. And in any case, what's anyone going to do about it? Go to war with Iran? Yeah, right. With what army?

[Coda]

It's really tough to have a conversation with these wise ass remarks.

I thought I made your ignore list Sisco. What happened?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

And in any case, what's anyone going to do about it? Go to war with Iran? Yeah, right. With what army?

I vote for the French Foreign Legion.

[Gary Sisco]

The one that got booted out of Vietnam and has hardly been heard from since?

[Jesse]

The U.S., and it's nuke client, Israel, have amassed staggering WMD's. (Check the receipts).

The same two States, of course, are entirely opposed to Iran enjoying the same WMDs.

Not to put to fine a point on it, Coda, but the question itself clarifies the current parameters for "debate." We got 'em, who else should be "allowed" to have them?

Again, check the receipts (an inventory hampered by Israel's long standing refusal to provide the rest of the world with an accounting of their build up, a positon asssumed by the equally recalcitrant Iraq).

Let's review: we got 'em, our clients got 'em, others face dire brinksmanship if they persist in their folly of getting 'em.

[Gary Sisco]

The truth is that there's no one can stop them if they want to go nuclear. All the talk in the world is just that.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

The one that got booted out of Vietnam and has hardly been heard from since?

Exactly. They're due for another "din bin foo", as LBJ might say.

[Gary Sisco]

Bon chance, mon ami.

Originally Posted by Jesse

The U.S., and it's nuke client, Israel, have amassed staggering WMD's. (Check the receipts).

I'd love to. Where might I start?

[Sergio Zamora]

Every sovereign state has a right to protect itself from foreign aggression.

[Jesse]

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...95/9506012.htm

Mo,
I don't want to get into an exchange I see here frequently, in which posters pose a question they can answer for themselves with that handy Google tool.
If you are genuinely interested in researching the question of Israel's nukes, how they got that way, the US role, the view from her neighbors, etc., there is no shortage of data resources out there.
No disrespect intended, simply circumventing a game that gets played here routinely.
The "yeah, but look at the sources you provided" volley, I don't have time for.
And we shouldn't conduct research that way, none of us. Do your own digging, discerning & concluding.

Oh.


I thought you were going to give me an actual checklist.

Not an opinion piece outlining what "specialists" say.

Sorry.

[Gary Sisco]

Yes, they do, Sergio. I agree with you. And so does any people, sovereign state or no. And whether I do or not, there still isn't anyone who can stop them if they want to go that route.

[Jesse]

The "yeah, but look at the sources you provided" volley, I don't have time for.
And we shouldn't conduct research that way, none of us. Do your own digging, discerning & concluding.

[Gary Sisco]

Scott is always concerned about sources but he never provides them. And when someone else does, he rejects them out of hand. That's been his MO since Genesee.

[Jesse]

My folly.

I diagram the game, setting up a post/target for it's tired execution.

[Jesse]

By the by, Mo, the link supplied wasn't intended to be a single source repository of truth.
It was literally the first item that came up addressing the topic, when I googled Israel's Nuclear Weapons.
To concretize my point to you about exercising your own research, & the ease of doing so.
In this context, an empty exercise, a wooden duck for your pot shots.

[Gary Sisco]

They don't actually have nukes. For some odd reason,they just like to imprison Israelis who talk about their nukes.

What you don't know, Jesse, is that I asked this question many moons ago because so many people here were blithering on and on about ALL the WMD that the U.S. has.

Don't worry, nobody came up with anything back then either.

And as far as Gary's advice, he constantly makes absolute statements and has NEVER once backed it up with any credible source. Something I have called him on time and time again. To which his canned reply is "look it up for yourself".

Or in other words, "I don't truly have a source, you'll just have to take my word for it".

And most around here will tell you that, especially back in my hardcore days, I almost always offered a link, or links, to back up what I said.

Don't worry, brother, I'm not trying to play a game with you. But I'm also not going to go for this "well of course we do" horseshit. Well, if that's true then proof should be around the next Google corner, no?

[Jesse]

Yes.

[Gary Sisco]

Nope, never once.

New York Times, The Economist, Washington Post, Ha'aretz, The Independent ....

You are *so* full of shit sometimes, Scott.

Originally Posted by Jesse

Yes.

I'm all eyes.

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Nope, never once.

New York Times, The Economist, Washington Post, Ha'aretz, The Independent ....

You are *so* full of shit sometimes, Scott.

Hey, two can play your game, Gary.

Don't wanna play, don't get it started.

Besides, you know goddamn well what I'm talking about.

[crawjo]

Does everyone here agree that nuclear weapons are a bad thing?

If you agree that nuclear weapons are a bad thing, the desired end result should be a severe limitation/reduction of the nuclear arsenals around the world, including the United States. Is that a fair statement?

If it is, then I think that yes, the world i.e. the U.N. should take aggressive action to prevent nuclear proliferation. If the end goal is a nuclear-free world, more countries acquiring the bomb moves us further away from that world, not closer to it.

As Gary rightly points out, the U.S. does not have the resources for an invasion of Iran. Given what is happening in Iraq, I don't even think that option is on the table at this point.

With nuclear proliferation, you have to think long term. Imagine an enlightened future where world leaders agree that everyone needs to reduce their stockpiles. As Coda said, take the current political climate off the table, because that's not really the issue.

It seems to me that if you are opposed to nuclear weapons, then you should be against nuclear proliferation. If you are against the United States stockpiling WMDs, you should also be against countries like Iran doing the same.

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Jesse

The U.S., and it's nuke client, Israel, have amassed staggering WMD's. (Check the receipts).

The same two States, of course, are entirely opposed to Iran enjoying the same WMDs.

What exactly is a nuke client Jesse?


Maybe Israel is a little concerned given the following statement made in 2001 by Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani after calling the establishment of the Jewish state 'the worst event in history,' he went on to say 'one [nuclear] bomb is enough to destroy all Israel,' and that 'in due time, the Islamic world will have a military nuclear device.'

It sounds like Iran fully intends to "enjoy" their WMD's when they get them shame on Israel for not wanting them to have a good time.

[patricia]

When the idea for nuclear weapons was first discovered, who gave the U.S. permission to develop them??

W?

[patricia]

When the idea for nuclear weapons was first discovered, did the U.S. seek permission from the other world leaders to develop them?? The same question could be asked of all the biological and chemical weapons that the U.S. has in it's arsenal.
In other words, did the rest of the world tell the U.S. that it was good with them that the U.S. should have a weapon that could not only inflict a horrible death immediately on thousands of people, but leave radiation which would affect countless generations to come??