You also have been listening to too much cheap political rhetoric (I mean, can't any of you guys do anything but paraphrase politicians?). Sure, it is easy to dismiss the leaders of Iran as "madmen". They in turn say that President Bush is an immoral corrupt demon out to plunge the world into depraved darkness. Can I safely assume that both sides are just name calling? Again, think.
One thing I don't do is allow the media or politicians to form my opinions. I have the ability to form an opinion based on the available information, I can reason based on current facts, historical data and human behaviours. I may not always be correct, but it is my own opinion not just some regurgitated political rant. That is rather disturbing to say the least. PS. I'm in no way suggesting the Israeli government are angels, they are/were far from it, and believe they should be under UN scrutiny
I've read trough the whole tread, and I feel I must add my €.02 too Since this turned into a "who has the right to nuke" discussion, I have the simple answer: nobody should have that much power at their disposal. Come on, we can destroy the world multiple times... What's the use in that? True, but are you willing to take the risk of being wrong? In case of nukes it's better to be safe then sorry. If 1 country is mad enough to launch the first one, 12hours later the whole world is gone due to retalliation. And with the recent hostile attitude of Iran, I would think it over... And: There is actually a law here in Belgium that deny's you the right to deny that... But again OT: I think it shows the level of maturity of the Muslim leaders, not the Muslim religion. Religion is how you interpret it. Ok, most Muslims are very religious, and their leaders word is truth. But you should expect the leaders to have some more commen sence, or maturity? Instead of showing so much hatred and agression. It's like: "Look mom, told me I had ugly cloths, so I burned down his house and told all his friends he was gay..." I never was a follower of the Muslim religion, I find it offensive, agressive and intolerant. But I respect other people's feelings, and I expect them to respect mine too. And more and more I get the signals from around me (I have a Muslim neighbor) that he tries to force his way of life upon us. He called my mom a whore because she divorced my father. I know that's an individual, but still, RESPECT people???
Actually, I doubt Iran has access to ICBM's, and I also doubt their capacity to maintain an even moderate nuclear aresenal. The most they could do, I reckon, would be nuke Israel, which obviously they're not going to do because they'd get nuked right on back. The threat of mutual annihilation only works if both sides have nukes though, otherwise, one side can bomb anything they don't like the look off with inpunity.
I'm not arguing over the validity of Iraq. Very few people know the exact truth of the entire matter, and it is very obnoxious for anyone else to assume that they know better. There are a lot of things that our governments don't tell us, and frankly, the less I know, the better. [Edit] I'm not sure I'd sleep well if I had access to all the data the government accumulates. [/Edit] China has nukes, so what. For the time being, they have no reason to use them. Sure there exists a constant disagreement between the US and China over Taiwan, but there's no imminent threat. Sure N. Korea claims to have nukes. Or, at the very least, they're developing them. Iran's president has openly declared that another civilized country should be destroyed. Some of the other comments he's made offers great insight into his state of mind. If you think otherwise, you are "frighteningly naive". You know what, I really don't care what anyone thinks, I honestly don't think that a regime such as Iran's should be allowed access to nuclear weapons. I understand their rationale that they are a sovereign nation and that no other country has a right to intervene in their internal affairs. But the thing is, their internal affairs have great ramifications in the grand scheme of things. You have a government that openly wants to obliterate another country and likes to incite anger against the western world. I don't know how everything was thrown so far off topic, but I seriously think that dialog must be formed like NOW because it may not be long before the bombs start falling.
Is this the basis of democracy? Perhaps my interpretation of the concepts of a free and democratic state are off, but I though it was based on the people NOT trusting their government, but rather demanding accountability. I think that is in large measure how we got embroiled in Iraq and Afganistan. After 9-11 people were scared and willing to trust a leader who appeared strong and purposeful, and not enough people said "Show me the evidence". Before you decide that this is strictly an anti-bush arguement, let me assure you, it's not. I think that no one, in any country, should blindly trust anyone in authority. If they are politicians, they should be held accountable to the desire of the people. If they are not elected (teachers, bosses, etc) they should be forced to justify their instructions and if they cannot, then they deserve to be ignored or subverted. All too often we forget that all leaders, be they presidents or Prime Ministers, professors or bosses, serve at the sufferage of those led.
While I agree with the idea that Bush isn't the sharpest pencil in the box, I don't think his actions are 100% his idea. After 9-11, Bush went after the Taliban because they were the ruling government of Afghanistan under the pretense that they supported the terrorist groups. As for Iraq, I suppose that a lot of people in high places in our government believed that an invasion was the right course. To be honest, I don't think that it's appropriate to say that it should or shouldn't have happened, but it should have been handled VERY differently. I do believe that our government should have gone about the process differently and possibly set up a face to face dialog or something of the sort. I still believe that the information which led to the decision that invasion was the best course of option is not disclosed to most people. I believe that if it is valid, the information should be disclosed and if it in fact doesn't exist, yes, measures should be taken to rectify the command structure so that we don't invade on a whim. I don't blidnly trust authority, but I recognize that there are a lot of things that I am unaware of and could never be aware of, so I give the officials the benefit of the doubt. I honestly think that certain actions by the US government over the past couple of years would have transpired with anyone else at the helm of the presidency, but a few things done differently would have changed EVERYTHING. At the time, I think a majority of the country favored an invasion of Iraq. There was a great deal of support because we were fed "evidence" which alleged that Saddam was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It's the entire aftermath of the first month which has been handled extremely poorly. Bush acknowledges these complaints, but at this point there's not much that could be done over what transpired, despite the fact that the primary reasons for invading turned out to be invalid. I am somewhat lax with how I express myself and in what kind of inpressions I may convey. I believe that those with the authority to govern should do so responsibly while not abusing their right to power. Some politicians use their power in providing for the well-being of those that govern, while others serve to enrich their own lives. I honestly believe that there is more to what's happening than is publicly known. I don't blindly trust my government in their actions, but on a case by case basis, I sometimes trust that they know how to run a city/state/country better than I do. I honestly don't think that I can criticize the government sometimes, for I am not qualified to judge their actions even if I was aware of the complete circumstances surrounding their actions. In a democratic society, there SHOULD be checks against corruption. There SHOULD be checks that ensure that the ruling body acts not on their on behalf, but on the behalf of the people they serve. In a feudal system, a king would send his subjects off to fight any war that he started on a whim (I'm saying this very loosely). In a democratic society as it exists today, it has to be trusted that a war cannot be started by a single person. There are many intelligent people who are running this country, with their collective ideas being voiced by Bush. What I trust is that their collective judgement is more appropriate than mine, given their experience and backgrounds, and knowledge of the situation. Not wishing to be an activist, I speak out in the easiest way I can, with my vote. Those I vote for usually have mindsets closest to that of my own, and I trust that if put in the same situation, I would take the same actions as they would. I didn't vote for Bush; I voted for Kerry. Not much can be done in terms of holding anyone in higher offices accountable beside supporting the politicians that have a louder voice. It is their job to hold the higher officials to their responsibility and to challenge those to justify their actions. In terms of Iran, I think that a face to face dialog is necessary to completely evaluate the situation. If an imminent threat is posed, action should be taken. If the situation is deemed inert, then it will dissolve. But from Iran's president's words and actions, the situation seems to be increasingly hostile. I believe that our governments should show restraint but also try to prevent what many see as an imminent threat.
No, he went after the Taliban because they were seen to tacitly (if not explicitly) support Osama's terrorist faction. They were in the way of getting to Osama. Of course, now we have loads of troops based there risking their neck on a daily basis, the country is in chaos, drug lords rule, the Taliban is actually making a come-back, and it is the population that suffers further. And we still haven't caught Osama. However if Iran does want to hurt us, it has thousands of Western troops to choose from just North of the Iran border right there in Afghanistan. Now to the East of Iran: Whatever you think Iraq was invaded for, it was not because Saddam Hussein posed a credible threat, because he had WMD or ambitions to take over the world, or because he was a bad, bad man. It was about conflict investment. When he was a useful tool against Iran he was friendly statesman (even if he did gas some Kurdish villages --hell, we sold him the chemicals to do so); when he welched on the deal by invading Kuwait he was an embarrassment and too much out of (US) control. He became a political and economical liability; he had to go. Now we have a country in chaos, which is a haven to terrorists and a hell to its citizens, with no stable government, economy, utilities, health care, law or order. We have many troops stationed there and there is no sign of them being able to leave any time soon. If anything, it has made dealing with Iran so much harder because our resources are spread all over the place already. Of course, the opponents of the Iraq war foresaw all this. I know I did. I wonder why the President of the US, with all his expert advisors, did not. What about their track record to date inspires that trust? They have got things spectacularly wrong so far. They have been unable to foresee things that I saw happening months off from the settee in my living room. The president and his advisors, by all appearances, are dumber than me. Shame that almost the whole of the UN did not share that opinion. But he was warned this would be the outcome. IT is not as if he can say: "Oops! Honest mistake!". He was warned that there was no conclusive evidence of WMD. He was warned that invasion would lead to the mess we have now. In fact, it was the very reason why his daddy did not overthrow Saddam Hussein at the end of the first Gulf War. He foresaw the mess that would create. Why couldn't Bush Jr.? Shouda, woulda coulda. Tell me, has that trust paid off with Iraq? With Afghanistan? Does the world feel safer and more stable now? Have they done a good job? Do you really think that the people running your country do so out of purely altruistic motives? That there are no personal agendas, ambitions, greed or lust for power? Do you think that those people are basically any different from the politicians in Iran? They may have a different culture, idelogy and religion, but basically, they went into politics for the same personal reasons, which often have very little to do with making the world a better place. It's about power and control. It's about thinking that you want to be the one in charge, because the world should run the way you see fit. Of course you can say: "Hang on, but Iran is not a real democracy. Any candidate standing for election first has to be approved by the Guardian Council of Clerics. In the US anybody can run for President..." Yeah, anybody who is male, white, millionair and has many tight bonds with business and politicians in High Places (the Guardian Council of Business?). The day a poor black woman from the Bronx can credibly run for President, I'll be impressed. And I won't even go into the legal disputes over Bush's first election. How many people did really vote for him again? Iran's leadership is strongly influenced by fundamentalist Islam; the US government is strongly influenced by traditional Christian values. Both governments disapprove strongly of homosexuality, sex outside of marriage and abortion. Both actively oppose same-sex marriage. Both tout their religious moral values and practices as standards that people should live by. In both countries you can get arrested for expressing "unpatriotic" sentiments against the President. So exactly how much of a difference is there between an Iran-style and US-style democracy? I think you have to really consider how it would play out if we bombed strategic targets in Iran. Would that end its nuclear ambitions, or accelerate them? Would Iran just take it, or retaliate on the Western troops based North in Afghanistan and East in Iraq? Would it antagonise the situation in the Middle East further, or settle it down? Would it invite more terrorism, or less? Would it make other Middle Eastern countries more weary and antagonistic of the US, or more trusting and friendly? It is easy to spout rethoric about "madmen" and "our leaders knowing what is best". It is a lot harder to predict and control what will happen if you commit an act of military aggression against Iran, while our actions have already turned Iraq into a terrorist wasps nest and made Afghanistan a lot worse.
Uh-huh. And who gets the right to decide who can have nukes and who can't? Of course I can see how the rethoric of Iran's leaders would make you worried. But if we are going to predict future behaviour from present attitude, we could go one better and predict future behaviour from past behaviour. Lessee... which countries have used nukes in an act of war in the past? Hey, only one: the US! Darn. Perhaps those guys shouldn't be allowed any... Of course that sort of thinking is simplistic. History has shown that when push comes to shove, countries back away from using the nuclear option, every time. The consequences are too big. It takes more than one person to press the red button --in fact it takes a whole chain of command. Nobody gets to be "the madman" to hit the proverbial button. Iran is not going to nuke Israel, for the simple reason that Israel will nuke them right back. And if Israel does not get to the red button in time, the US will. Iran's leaders know that. And religious fundamentalism or not, they want to rule over a country, not a desert of radioactive glass. Congratulations, you live next to an asshole. There are many of them, and come in all colours, cultures and religions. Being an asshole is an equal opportunities thing, so to speak. Yours happens to be Muslim. Deal with the asshole, not with the Muslim. I have Muslim colleagues. Doctors, surgeons, nurses. They are great, warm, intelligent people I get on with very well. Good people come in all colours, cultures and religions too, I guess.
I think the main worry isn't that Iran will press the big red *launch* button, but they'll make a nuclear weapon available to those who WOULD deploy it. Nexxo, to be honest, I find your points to be quite rational and valid. The current state of world affairs is pretty aggravating. We need a unifying factor, say... alien invasion. Honestly, I can't think of anything else that will calm all these international tensions. Well, aside from the presidential election of 2008 when we *hopefully* elect a more competent president.
I considered that, but I really don't think so. Dictators are in the business of staying in business. That's all they care about. What would be the point of farming out expensive hardware to terrorists? There is nothing in it for Iran, like there was nothing in it for Saddam Hussein to give any more than a bit of vague lip-service to Middle Eastern terrorists. Apartr from the practicalities (it takes a lot of expertise and infrastructure to transport and deploy nuclear warheads. You'd have to supply not only the nuke, but also the equipment to manage, transport and launch it, and the experts to facilitate that process), even if some terrorists manage to drive a lorry down to Jeruzalem, or sail up to Manhattan Island in a freighter and detonate a nuke, it will not take very long for the combined Intelligence forces of the world to work out where they got that gear from. I mean, any country with nukes will be going: "Whoa! Nothing to do with us guv'!" and give their full co-operation in finding out who committed this heinous crime (just remember how every government in the Middle East condemned and disassociated themselves from 9/11 like, instantly). It would not take long at all to find out who supplied that nuke, following which the leaders of Iran may as well take tea in their back garden waiting for Israeli or US nukes to come in and vapourise them. The risks of getting caught would be too great. And for what? To spit in America's eye? To cause the destruction of Israel at the expense of seeing your own country turned into a radioactive plate of glass instantly? There is nothing in it for them. The leaders of Iran may spout rethoric, but you never see them risk their necks. Like Osama Bin Laden may regularly issue another tirade on video (Osama's Greatest Hits, vol. X), but never, ever personally joins the fray. Like Saddam Hussein may have rubbed his hands with glee at any trouble the US had, but would never commit his own resources and risk his own dominion. Frankly, if we had left him alone, he could not have cared less. Make no mistake: every leader is in it for personal gain. Religion and patriotism are just a useful tool to recruit followers into doing the dirty work for you, and pay the final price (it works on this side of the divide too). But in the end, the motivation is always greed and power, not ideology.
Hmmm... so cartoons are going to lead to the end of the world eh? Seriously though, I know I wont lose any sleep over Iran having nukes. Right now something like 8 or 9 countries have nukes... so Iran will get them and boat will rock, and then the proverbial boat will settle. Some countries will condemn Iran for a while and oil prices will go up, then will all forget about it and move on to the next boat rocker. Just because Iran has nukes does not mean they will use them. It's stupid for a country like Iran (if it was someone like China I might lose a little sleep). Any good regime only cares about one thing, keeping their power. If they nuke someone will lose that power; through nuclear retaliation or through some other military action. Iran's government must keep their people hating someone besides their own government. They must have an outside enemy. To help provoke that hatred they make threats, but thats all. Just threats. And trying to compare any current dictator too Hitler, and world domination is just nonsense in this day and age. The world and the German dictatorship was totally different back then compared to the world and any dictatorship today. That was a unique situation (the current state of Germany financially, the state of it's society, just coming off world war 1, etc, etc), and wont happen again. The world is too interconnected for it happen, because it happened once. And they need the Western world on top of everything else.
Uh, I may have misinterpreted something here XUntitled, but China has nukes, about 400 of the things in fact. They've had them for a long time too, about 50 years now.
I meant if someone big like China was making threats against someone else, like Japan or the US then I could see it as being a problem. China is big enough to actually back up their threats, Iran isn't. Thats all I meant; I'm not worried about China having the nukes, but if they start making threats we could have a cold war type stigma in the air again that wont happen with Iran.
Well that is quite true, there is nothing to suggest that they would use them, other than the "wipe Israel off the map" comment. Even so you are probably correct, probably. But who would have thought Sadam Hussain would have attacked Kuwait not so long ago with scud missiles, and used biological weapons against the Kurds.
That's actually a really good point. When did Saddam use his "strategic" weapons? When faced with the threat of imminent invasion. That's what strategic weapons are for, to keep the country that has them from being wiped off the map, be it by occupation or nuclear extermination. The iuse of chemical (not boilogical as far as I know) weapons agains the Kurds is another matter. First off, it was an internal use rather than an external aggression, which, right or wrong, has always been viewed in a different light by the international community. Secondly, I'm not sure what ever became of this, but I remember reports a few years ago that said that the attack on Kurdish villages was in error (They were aiming for the Iranians and the wind shifted). I don't know if this has been verified, but if correct it casts an entirely different light on the matter.
Well, the US actually knew about the invasion of Kuwait well in advance. Iraq had a long-standing territorial dispute with Kuwait over the Rumailah oil fields, and decided at some point (motivated by a need to recover economically from the war with Iran) to seize control of these fields. This was done with tacit permission of the US. Of course Saddam Hussein then got greedy and took the whole of Kuwait. This was against the deal, and a considerable political embarrassment to the US, who therefore decided to smack him down.
Interesting read, Nexxo. Do you have any other references from more reputable sources. (I'm not saying this in a sarcastic tone. I really do wish to see if other news agencies released similar articles. Since it's 6:00 am here, I guess I'll spend some time with google later on, this day has been more than long enough.)
There is a Transcript published by the New York Times on September 23, 1990 of this meeting. Another interesting link is that of The Washington Times.
