|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Iran Deal
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
After somewhere between 2 and 10 years of negotiating, there's been an agreement that Iran will no longer seek to develop nuclear weapons; in return for which they will be allowed to trade with the rest of the world. Forced into this "deal" by the owners of one of the world's largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
Would this deal have looked different had the USA and other nuclear armed states first taken the plank from their own eyes?
[edit - must proof read before posting!]
[ 14. July 2015, 21:48: Message edited by: Humble Servant ]
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
Not sure about that, but I think it will look different in a couple of years time when Iran have developed the bomb.
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
At least someone is trying something. As to those especially in USA who oppose the deal . Well please remember there are other nations involved besides USA so trying to kill the deal may not be THAT easy .
But in the words of John Lennon "Give peace a chance" ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes wait until we "find" WMDs in Iran, the way we "found" WMDs in Iraq. Then we can have another 14-year war killing thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iranians, leave the area even further destabilized, and crow about how much we love freedom.
Fuck all that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
The world is a tar baby.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Forced into this "deal" by the owners of one of the world's largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons
Actually, by the five largest declared nuclear weapons states, as well as the EU. (Israel may or may not have more nuclear weapons that France or the UK - no publicly-accessible, reliable data exists.)
If this deal is unacceptable, than what would be an acceptable outcome? Does anyone actually want a nuclear-armed Iran?
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
If this deal is unacceptable, than what would be an acceptable outcome?
An acceptable outcome is Iran not having nuke bombs. The deal is unacceptable to me because I believe that if a country wants nukes, they will have nukes. It might be just a little tougher than intentionally catching a STD. The only way to stop someone is to beat hell out of them and folks are hinky about going that far. Given my opinion, there is hope it is just my depression kicking in and we really aren't dangling over the gaping maw.
quote:
Does anyone actually want a nuclear-armed Iran?
The Iranians and probably those they back sure seem to want it.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Forced into this "deal" by the owners of one of the world's largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons
Actually, by the five largest declared nuclear weapons states, as well as the EU. (Israel may or may not have more nuclear weapons that France or the UK - no publicly-accessible, reliable data exists.)
If this deal is unacceptable, than what would be an acceptable outcome? Does anyone actually want a nuclear-armed Iran?
I don't want a nuclear-armed anywhere. Dreadful, immoral, unusable, pointless things.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
If this deal is unacceptable, than what would be an acceptable outcome?
The deal is unacceptable to me because I believe that if a country wants nukes, they will have nukes. It might be just a little tougher than intentionally catching a STD. The only way to stop someone is to beat hell out of them and folks are hinky about going that far. Given my opinion, there is hope it is just my depression kicking in and we really aren't dangling over the gaping maw.
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons? Might delay them getting one for a bit, but as you said yourself it's about impossible to stop a country from having nukes if they are willing to put enough effort into it.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The Iranians and probably those they back sure seem to want it.
That must be why Iranian religious leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared nuclear weapons to be haram.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Does anyone actually want a nuclear-armed Iran?
I'm not convinced Iran wants a nuclear armed Iran - though a few individuals within the government may.
Despite Iran being the bogey man of Western governments it's probably one of the most western nations in the region. Though the electoral process may be far from perfect, it is a democracy (unlike, say Saudi). The status of women is much higher than in many other Islamic states (universal suffrage, 25% of government ministers are women, women make up the majority of university students especially in science and technology). Iran has had a nuclear programme since the 1950s.
[code]
[ 15. July 2015, 21:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The Iranians and probably those they back sure seem to want it.
That must be why Iranian religious leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared nuclear weapons to be haram.
So? Why should he be trusted?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
So, your solution to the instabilities in the region which is a breeding ground of Islamic extremist terrorism is to bomb the hell out of one of the few potential allies you have, turning a stable democracy into another fucked up nation for IS to gain support in? Yeah, really smart ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
Assuming I understand your analogy, you mean genocide.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not convinced Iran wants a nuclear armed Iran - though a few individuals within the government may.
It would be groovy if they really don't.
quote:
Despite Iran being the bogey man of Western governments it's probably one of the most western nations in the region. Though the electoral process may be far from perfect, it is a democracy (unlike, say Saudi). The status of women is much higher than in many other Islamic states (universal suffrage, 25% of government ministers are women, women make up the majority of university students especially in science and technology).
Cool, but more importantly, lots of Iranian chicks are major babes.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
Yehaw! Were's my boomstick!
Are you serious? Surely this deal is a positive step? I at least think it is.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I remember a pair of college students, some years back, who were sisters, from a service family. They had grown up partly in an American base in Iran. This was, of course, before the Shah fell.
That was a bit more than 30 years ago. Plenty of people remember when Iran was a major U.S. partner. Good times come and go, and so do bad times.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
Assuming I understand your analogy, you mean genocide.
Probably not that far, but it would probably take making Tehran and any areas involved with nuclear research look like a 1945 German or Japanese city. But then, that might just prove to them they should have had them. With all the warheads on the earth, how hard would it really be for just one to show up missing and not found until it blows up in the city it was smuggled in to for revenge.
There are probably several dozen nations that could build them if they really wanted to. What could really be done if they decide to do it?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
Yehaw! Were's my boomstick!
Are you serious? Surely this deal is a positive step? I at least think it is.
Yep, I'm serious. Let's take it from country to country to person to person. The reason you haven't shown up on my front porch with a shotgun to blow me in half at the waist is because you have thus far chosen not to do so. If you really wanted to, you could probably do it and no law, rule, custom or whatever could stop you. It comes down to whether or not you want to be a killer.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why would being beaten up by a better-armed power make someone less likely to want a Weapon to Trump All Other Weapons?
I'm not talking about a fat lip and black eye beating. I'm talking about the rest of their life having to have their meals through a tube down the goozle type of beating.
Assuming I understand your analogy, you mean genocide.
Probably not that far, but it would probably take making Tehran and any areas involved with nuclear research look like a 1945 German or Japanese city. But then, that might just prove to them they should have had them. With all the warheads on the earth, how hard would it really be for just one to show up missing and not found until it blows up in the city it was smuggled in to for revenge.
There are probably several dozen nations that could build them if they really wanted to. What could really be done if they decide to do it?
What you are suggesting is evil and counter productive. I am not going to engage further with you on this thread as I doubt if I can keep my tone purgatorial.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
So? Why should he be trusted?
Because what they say is corroborated by the evidence of them not trying to develop nuclear weapons, and generally religious leaders don't go out of their way to declare something sinful if they are doing that same thing and know they will ultimately be found out.
In any case, it's rather for the "prosecution" to make the case that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and given that the prosecution has largely consisted of the US and Israel, both of whom have a long track record of bullshit in this area, it's going to need to be a pretty damn convincing case.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What you are suggesting is evil and counter productive. I am not going to engage further with you on this thread as I doubt if I can keep my tone purgatorial.
What you are suggesting is that you have piss poor reading comprehension skills and I don't believe you.
Read back over what I'm saying because I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm saying what I think it would take to FORCE Iran to knuckle under to our will. I don't think it possible to make someone be good and behave. They have to choose to be good and behave.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The Iranians and probably those they back sure seem to want it.
That must be why Iranian religious leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared nuclear weapons to be haram.
So? Why should he be trusted?
I will confess to not having read the deal, but does it really have no inspection regime?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
So? Why should he be trusted?
Because what they say is corroborated by the evidence of them not trying to develop nuclear weapons
I could see how someone might find evidence of someone trying to do something, but what would evidence of someone not trying something look like?
quote:
and generally religious leaders don't go out of their way to declare something sinful if they are doing that same thing and know they will ultimately be found out.
That's an interesting thought.
quote:
In any case, it's rather for the "prosecution" to make the case that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and given that the prosecution has largely consisted of the US and Israel, both of whom have a long track record of bullshit in this area, it's going to need to be a pretty damn convincing case.
I've said earlier what I think it would take for us to make Iran behave and not build those weapons if they really want them and we really want to stop them. Grim, I say.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What you are suggesting is evil and counter productive. I am not going to engage further with you on this thread as I doubt if I can keep my tone purgatorial.
What you are suggesting is that you have piss poor reading comprehension skills and I don't believe you.
Read back over what I'm saying because I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm saying what I think it would take to FORCE Iran to knuckle under to our will. I don't think it possible to make someone be good and behave. They have to choose to be good and behave.
I was assuming the first few sentences were related to the rest of your post, oddly enough.
However, I am quite willing to believe this was a misunderstanding based upon poor expressive writing skills.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not convinced Iran wants a nuclear armed Iran - though a few individuals within the government may.
It would be groovy if they really don't.
quote:
Despite Iran being the bogey man of Western governments it's probably one of the most western nations in the region. Though the electoral process may be far from perfect, it is a democracy (unlike, say Saudi). The status of women is much higher than in many other Islamic states (universal suffrage, 25% of government ministers are women, women make up the majority of university students especially in science and technology).
Cool, but more importantly, lots of Iranian chicks are major babes.
One of them, Maryam Mirzakhani won the Fields Medal for mathematics in 2014, illustrating the academic capabilities and reputation of Iran. She's now professor at Stanford University.
Iran isn't Iraq with an "n" instead of a "q". Different thing entirely.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The Iranians and probably those they back sure seem to want it.
That must be why Iranian religious leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared nuclear weapons to be haram.
So? Why should he be trusted?
I will confess to not having read the deal, but does it really have no inspection regime?
I've read the first few pages of this and if Iran actually goes along then they won't make nuclear bombs. It looks like IAEA will be monitoring. I wonder if it is possible to have a secret nuclear facility or, given the nature of the beast, it isn't something you can keep a secret.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, your solution to the instabilities in the region which is a breeding ground of Islamic extremist terrorism is to bomb the hell out of one of the few potential allies you have, turning a stable democracy into another fucked up nation for IS to gain support in? Yeah, really smart
That's not my solution to what is going on there. If you want to force someone against their will to not do something that they are determined to do, it will take a major beat down and then to flail away at them each time they move, forever and ever. That's why I don't have a problem with talking to them. Persuasion is preferable to compulsion.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I was assuming the first few sentences were related to the rest of your post, oddly enough.
However, I am quite willing to believe this was a misunderstanding based upon poor expressive writing skills.
I've looked back over what I've written and haven't found where a reasonable person would think I'm suggesting we unleash hell. Everything I've said, and still believe, is what I think we would have to do if we were to force Iran to behave a certain way instead of persuade and encourage them to behave a certain way.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, your solution to the instabilities in the region which is a breeding ground of Islamic extremist terrorism is to bomb the hell out of one of the few potential allies you have, turning a stable democracy into another fucked up nation for IS to gain support in? Yeah, really smart
That's not my solution to what is going on there. If you want to force someone against their will to not do something that they are determined to do, it will take a major beat down and then to flail away at them each time they move, forever and ever. That's why I don't have a problem with talking to them. Persuasion is preferable to compulsion.
But talking and persuasion what the P5+1 were just doing - so why exactly do you insist that the agreement is unacceptable?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, your solution to the instabilities in the region which is a breeding ground of Islamic extremist terrorism is to bomb the hell out of one of the few potential allies you have, turning a stable democracy into another fucked up nation for IS to gain support in? Yeah, really smart
That's not my solution to what is going on there. If you want to force someone against their will to not do something that they are determined to do, it will take a major beat down and then to flail away at them each time they move, forever and ever. That's why I don't have a problem with talking to them. Persuasion is preferable to compulsion.
But talking and persuasion what the P5+1 were just doing - so why exactly do you insist that the agreement is unacceptable?
You know what? You have a good point there if the Iranians abide by the agreement. What matters is that they don't build nukes whether there is an agreement or not. Time will tell.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
With some of the hysteria around this, I can't help wondering if people just don't notice that the countries that aren't signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty are North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel.
Oh, and South Sudan, probably just because they haven't existed long enough to get around to it.
United States politics seems occasionally to be weirdly obsessed with particular enemies. Cuba is one that stands out of course, and Obama's doing something about that. But Iran is another one. The determination that Iran not only is an enemy, but must be an enemy has driven a great deal of policy since 1979. I knew about the Iran-Iraq war when I was a kid in the '80s, but to understand as an adult how Saddam Hussein was supported in the first stage of his megalomania for basically "Not Being Iran" opens up a whole new avenue into the complete mess that's been made.
And I'm sure there are Iranian hardliners who drive home the message that Americans are the enemy just as much as there are American hardliners who drive home the message that Iranians are the enemy. You can't be that kind of "strong" person unless you've got someone to be strong against.
But just as much as it's wrong to think that all Americans are in the Tea Party or whatever, it's equally wrong to think that all Iranians hate Westerners with lethal force.
I don't doubt that Iran has interests and seeks to advance them. Whoop-de-do. So does everyone. Iran is quite a large country, and there's no reason why it wouldn't have power and influence, and it's basically the world's main Shiite state so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that it's interests are often aligned with supporting Shiites elswhere, including against Sunnis. There's nothing particularly nefarious about any of that. Nor is it simplistic as that (have a look at writing on Azerbaijan-Iran relations).
But among the countries that Iran doesn't get on with are Israel and Saudi Arabia - the latter being one of its main rivals for regional influence. The issue as I see it is trying to understand why exactly we keep picking a side in those kinds of disputes.
Meanwhile, we don't seem to have any great concern with India and Pakistan so long as they promise to only blow each other up and not cause a more general nuclear winter.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
BL. Looking forward to petrol prices coming down.
Yes, yes, naive I know. But one can live in hope, even in hell.
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like IAEA will be monitoring. I wonder if it is possible to have a secret nuclear facility or, given the nature of the beast, it isn't something you can keep a secret.
The question I would ask is, would Iran be more likely to get away with making a bomb without the agreement, or with it? Could we "force" them to not make a bomb through war or intimidation, and stand any better chance of thinking they won't build a bomb than through this agreement? Would war change their motivation for making or not making a bomb? Is this, in fact, the best possible way, not that it's perfect, but the best possible way to minimize the chances of Iran making a bomb?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The question I would ask is, would Iran be more likely to get away with making a bomb without the agreement, or with it?
I'm not so sure because I'm not sure if they are lying or not.
quote:
Could we "force" them to not make a bomb through war or intimidation, and stand any better chance of thinking they won't build a bomb than through this agreement? Would war change their motivation for making or not making a bomb?
As I said above, and some mistakenly thought that is what I was advocating, it seems it would have to be a war of devastation to even have a chance of working. If we just smack them around some, it will probably tell them they've needed it all along and build all they can and/or buy some off the black market if any are on the black market. The saying of "if you shoot at the king you must kill him" comes to mind. But then, what does that tell other countries that are considering the idea? It would tell me to build, build now, and build a lot. When I go online and check the news each morning, yeah, I admit I'm checking to see if someone has smuggled a nuclear bomb into some city and set it off.
quote:
Is this, in fact, the best possible way, not that it's perfect, but the best possible way to minimize the chances of Iran making a bomb?
Given the choice between trying an agreement and doing what I think we would have to do militarily to stop them, I'm all for trying an agreement.
With all this going on, as I understand it, the Iranians are against ISIS just like we are. I'll think about it tomorrow whilst drinking a beer.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Rejoice!
Like over India and Bangladesh swapping enclaves.
To imagine Iran as one monolithic 'they' engaged in quadruple think is absurd. And no, it is impossible for them to 'secretly' develop a nuke. And if they did, or openly, NOBODY, not even the insane Republican-Israeli-Saudi axis is going to do a thing except proliferate nukes to every Sunni state. There will be no invasion of Iran. Ever.
'They' are coming in from the cold where WE put them.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And no, it is impossible for them to 'secretly' develop a nuke.
Why is such a thing impossible to conceal, Martin?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
My thought on "What do we do with a problem like Iran?" (to the tune from Sound of Music) is that we are failing to deal with the war between the fundamentalists of Sunni and Shia. This has been going on since 634 and will probably never be resolved.
Originally posted by Martin60
quote:
To imagine Iran as one monolithic 'they' engaged in quadruple think is absurd. And no, it is impossible for them to 'secretly' develop a nuke. And if they did, or openly, NOBODY, not even the insane Republican-Israeli-Saudi axis is going to do a thing except proliferate nukes to every Sunni state. There will be no invasion of Iran. Ever.
As I have previously posted, the Mideast is like a black hole that will pull the whole world into its center. Any efforts to reduce this are worth trying.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But among the countries that Iran doesn't get on with are Israel and Saudi Arabia - the latter being one of its main rivals for regional influence. The issue as I see it is trying to understand why exactly we keep picking a side in those kinds of disputes.
We pick sides because we think it's in our best interest - even when history shows us time and again it isn't (Hussein in Iraq, Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the Shah in Iran, etc.)
The Saudis have oil we need, or think we need. And they give us access to military bases in the area.
The West's relationship with Israel is a toxic blend of:
a) guilt over the Holocaust and the West's failure to stop it - even after we knew it was happening and had the means to do so;
b) a particular (peculiar?) brand of conservative evangelicalism that sees Israel as both the object of the Abrahamic covenant in Gen. 12:3 (see note 1), and a means to bring about the end times (rebuilding the Temple, etc.)
(note 1) "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
[ 16. July 2015, 13:25: Message edited by: jbohn ]
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But among the countries that Iran doesn't get on with are Israel and Saudi Arabia - the latter being one of its main rivals for regional influence. The issue as I see it is trying to understand why exactly we keep picking a side in those kinds of disputes.
We pick sides because we think it's in our best interest - even when history shows us time and again it isn't (Hussein in Iraq, Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the Shah in Iran, etc.)
The Saudis have oil we need, or think we need. And they give us access to military bases in the area.
The West's relationship with Israel is a toxic blend of:
a) guilt over the Holocaust and the West's failure to stop it - even after we knew it was happening and had the means to do so;
b) a particular (peculiar?) brand of conservative evangelicalism that sees Israel as both the object of the Abrahamic covenant in Gen. 12:3 (see note 1), and a means to bring about the end times (rebuilding the Temple, etc.)
(note 1) "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
This pretty much sums it up, yes. And it's depressing.
More than one documentary in recent years has really opened my eyes to just how far back some of these policy decisions go. Decisions that helped create Saudi Arabia as we know it (and therefore, a rich source of funds for a fairly extreme variety of Sunni Islam) go back to at least the time of World War II, and as you say the history of Israel is bound up with World War II as well. One of ISIS' early acts/goals was the removal of a border between Iraq and Syria that was part of an artificial carve-up of territory in 1916-1920.
Someone at work was reading a book on Afghanistan that discussed how outside powers have been trying to control that country for hundreds of years, and it's never worked in the way intended.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
An interesting question is whether it would make any difference if Iran did have atomic bombs. Notice that although multiple nations have such bombs, no one has used them in a war in 70 years. Iran is not crazier than, say, Russia under Khrushchev or North Korea under its dictators. Ask yourself: do you think they are dumb enough to bomb Israel and have the prevailing winds bring fallout over Iran itself? Of course, atomic weapons can be used as a threat, but they lose substance as a threat when no one ever carries out the threat. What we have learned is that a weapon that is too large is mostly a waste of money.
I think a better topic to worry about is the proliferation of knowledge about virology. How long will it be until the first major viral warfare? (It is obvious that we are already too late to prevent computer-virus attacks.)
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Ask yourself: do you think they are dumb enough to bomb Israel and have the prevailing winds bring fallout over Iran itself?
To say nothing of the risk of nuclear retaliation from the Israelis and/or their allies. The Iranians have a worldview that is mostly incompatible with those in the West, but they're not suicidal.
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I think a better topic to worry about is the proliferation of knowledge about virology. How long will it be until the first major viral warfare? (It is obvious that we are already too late to prevent computer-virus attacks.)
Biological warfare on a state level is unlikely, I think - it's simply too hard to control. Bio-terrorism on a small-group-actor scale, on the other hand, is far more likely
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
ore than one documentary in recent years has really opened my eyes to just how far back some of these policy decisions go. Decisions that helped create Saudi Arabia as we know it (and therefore, a rich source of funds for a fairly extreme variety of Sunni Islam) go back to at least the time of World War II,
WWI, actually. The British (among others) encouraged a revolt against the Ottomans during and after the war.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
ore than one documentary in recent years has really opened my eyes to just how far back some of these policy decisions go. Decisions that helped create Saudi Arabia as we know it (and therefore, a rich source of funds for a fairly extreme variety of Sunni Islam) go back to at least the time of World War II,
WWI, actually. The British (among others) encouraged a revolt against the Ottomans during and after the war.
And very messy they were too. The party backed by the British held parts of what is now Saudi Arabia for some time after 1918 but in 1932 the current state of Saudi Arabia was founded with Ibn Saud at the head, known as King Abdulaziz (thanks Wiki, I wondered about the names!)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
[QB] An interesting question is whether it would make any difference if Iran did have atomic bombs. Notice that although multiple nations have such bombs, no one has used them in a war in 70 years. Iran is not crazier than, say, Russia under Khrushchev or North Korea under its dictators. Ask yourself: do you think they are dumb enough to bomb Israel and have the prevailing winds bring fallout over Iran itself?
It seems that the reason folks are extra hinky about Iran having the bomb is their being a theological state and how the bomb can be used to advance a desired eschatology. I do hope they are just selling wolf tickets.
quote:
Of course, atomic weapons can be used as a threat, but they lose substance as a threat when no one ever carries out the threat. What we have learned is that a weapon that is too large is mostly a waste of money.
Thomas Sowell once wrote "What is history but the story of how politicians have squandered the blood and treasure of the human race?" If it was nuclear weapons that kept us and the Soviets from going at it hammers and tongs, I'm cool with it. I'd rather blow money on weapons that aren't used than spend money on weapons that are. At least we can live to tell about it.
quote:
I think a better topic to worry about is the proliferation of knowledge about virology. How long will it be until the first major viral warfare? (It is obvious that we are already too late to prevent computer-virus attacks.)
Always with the negative waves, Moriarty.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If you let the IAEA in, there's nothing they can't ask to see. If you don't let them in or don't let them inspect trucks, trains, barges, follow power lines, roads, you're building a nuke.
Iran is not and never has been a problem unless we make it so. Neither will it be. If we EVER once tried saying sorry and can we start again and would you like tea at the Palace that would be nice.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
How long will it be until the first major viral warfare?
Depending on how you define "major", we have already experienced viral warfare.
There is good evidence that British officers gave blankets contaminated with smallpox as gifts to native Americans during the Pontiac Rebellion of 1763-66) with the deliberate intention of spreading smallpox among the native population. Half a million people died of smallpox during and shortly after the war, though whether the blankets contributed to that is unclear since the disease was already present in the native population. There were almost certainly other instances of this practice in North America - both before and after independence.
In the Middle Ages it was quite common for armies besieging a city to fling the corpses of plague victims inside (though I'll accept that bubonic plague is bacterial rather than viral). It's suggested that the practice originated with the Mongols, from the Steppes of Asia where bubonic plague is endemic, who managed to maintain a chain of infection within their armies so they could spread the disease among populations with no immunity. If so, this act of biological warfare killed a third of the population of Europe in a few decades.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
The 'half million' figure seems questionable. According to Wikipedia:
"The total loss of life resulting from Pontiac's War is unknown. About 400 British soldiers were killed in action and perhaps 50 were captured and tortured to death.[98] George Croghan estimated that 2,000 settlers had been killed or captured, a figure sometimes repeated as 2,000 settlers killed.[99] The violence compelled approximately 4,000 settlers from Pennsylvania and Virginia to flee their homes.[100] Native American losses went mostly unrecorded."
I think future attempts at using disease as a weapon of war will be better informed and perhaps even deadlier than the examples you cite. In any case, one could attack the food chain rather than afflict human beings directly. Suppose someone finds a way to kill every maize plant in north America (or soybeans).
This is getting off track.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
If we EVER once tried saying sorry and can we start again
Sorry for what? For the Shah? The Shah has been dead for longer than most Iranians have been alive. I don't think that's the big issue today.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
