Count down to Iran invasion

[Hawker]

If by "unstable" I meant US controlled, I would have said US controlled.  I said unstable region as in one that is constantly having wars and revolutions and where the governments have a total disregard for the human rights of their subjects. 

[1714109112]

1714109112

[1714109112]

1714109112

[1714109112]

1714109112

[1714109112]

1714109112

[P4man]

The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region and that it would be a bad idea for all the countries in that region to have nuclear weapons to threaten each other with.  Its a fair point. 

So you think its a better idea to allow only one nation to ignore non proliferation treaties, have nukes and threaten its neighbors with it? Not just any nation, one of the only remaining apartheid regimes, a terrorist sponsoring state ran by warmongering crackpots that actually are crazy enough to use it offensively.

I saw a poll a while ago held in the middle east region about the issue. Almost no one there considers Iran a threat to stability or peace, quite on the contrary. Overwhelmingly they see Israel and the US as a threat to peace and stability. When asked if they would consider the region more or less dangerous if Iran acquired nukes, the majority now say it would be positive, even in Sunni states, go figure. Here, I only found these key findings:

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx

I don't think Iran can be stopped

They have been stopped from developing nukes, if ever they did, nearly a decade ago.  Why doesnt anyone listen to US intelligence agencies when they say something diametrically opposite of warmongering and lying politicians and media? Go read the national intelligence estimate.

[P4man]

Oh it seems the entire poll is actually linked at the bottom of the website I linked. I highly recommend everyone to look at it, it may help many of you to better understand Arab sentiment.

Anyway, here is one I was referring to, and that should catch your eye when you call Iran an international pariah; while their puppet regimes may tell you differently, arabs themselves disagree:

[Hawker]

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception? 

[P4man]

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception? 

You said "the US thinks..". Have any evidence that US wants Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal?

[memvola]

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception?  

You said "the US thinks..". Have any evidence that US wants Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal?

LOL. molecular also has a fair point.

Everyone is fed up with the US and Israel and the bullshit arena they engineered. I don't have an opinion either way, but it's just as possible that nukes might bring peace and prosperity to the region if the western world feels threatened enough to stop fucking with them. Though there are many levels of fucking with, so it is also possible that they successfully ignite nuclear war in the region by giving nukes to their preferred regimes, like when they sold WMD's to Saddam back in the day (which is I guess is Hawker's position?).

[Hawker]

P4man - when I said the world would be better off if the crackpot countries in the Middle East didn't have nukes, how come you are so sure that Israel is an exception? 

You said "the US thinks..". Have any evidence that US wants Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal?

What I said was "The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region ... "

Be fair - thats absolutely true. 

[P4man]

What I said was "The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region ... "

Be fair - thats absolutely true.  

What is unstable about Iran? Its been the same regime for 30+ years. The only war it has been involved in, has been a defensive one against a US sponsored invasion by Iraq. There are some protest, but quite frankly, possibly less so then there are in the US. Whats unstable about Iran? Its not because the US tries everything it can to destabilize the regime that its working. It isnt.

[Hawker]

What I said was "The US and most of the rest of the world think that Iran is an unstable country in an unstable region ... "

Be fair - thats absolutely true.  

What is unstable about Iran? Its been the same regime for 30+ years. The only war it has been involved in, has been a defensive one against a US sponsored invasion by Iraq. There are some protest, but quite frankly, possibly less so then there are in the US. Whats unstable about Iran? Its not because the US tries everything it can to destabilize the regime that its working. It isnt.

Whats unstable about Iran is that it's regime relies on killing its opposition leaders and on vast numbers of its own people, sometimes over 100 per day, in order to retain power.

If you are really interested in this, look at the leader of the so called moderates in Iran who led the attempted "green revolution." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi#Prime_ministership

In 1987, he was in power and his security forces executed over 20,000 people in a 5 month period.  I wrote to him at the time pleading for someone's release (I'm in Amnesty International) but the guy was dead before my letter was even posted. 

That's the idea of a "moderate" in an unstable country. 

[P4man]

Whats unstable about Iran is that it's regime relies on killing its opposition leaders and on vast numbers of its own people, sometimes over 100 per day, in order to retain power

Oh. So that makes Saudi Arabia, Bahrein,  Russia, China and a gazillion other countries also "unstable" then?
I never said Iran was a model democracy. Even though it actually is compared to most US allies in the region, but it isnt by any sensible definition. What does that have to do with stability, or for that matter, this topic?

[Hawker]

Whats unstable about Iran is that it's regime relies on killing its opposition leaders and on vast numbers of its own people, sometimes over 100 per day, in order to retain power

Oh. So that makes Saudi Arabia, Bahrein,  Russia, China and a gazillion other countries also "unstable" then?
I never said Iran was a model democracy. Even though it actually is compared to most US allies in the region, but it isnt by any sensible definition. What does that have to do with stability, or for that matter, this topic?

You seem to be all over the place here.  The Iranian regime depends on massive coercion to remain in power.  It lives in fear of Iranians and all of its actions should be seen thorugh the prisim of a group of people who know they would be lynched if the general public had its way.

That is an unstable regime.  And thanks for reinforcing my point earlier - its neighbours are unstable as well.  Its an unstable region. 

The bigger question is why you care?  What makes it so important for you to believe that the Iranian regime is a stable popular government?  Whether or not it gets nukes it nothing to do with the stability of the regime so why are you banging on about it being so stable?

[P4man]

You seem to be all over the place here.  The Iranian regime depends on massive coercion to remain in power.  It lives in fear of Iranians and all of its actions should be seen thorugh the prisim of a group of people who know they would be lynched if the general public had its way.

That is an unstable regime. 

Thats the most ridiculous definition of unstable I ever heard. By your logic, China is extremely unstable, Saudi Arabia is one of the least stable countries in the world, while Pakistan would be fairly stable.
really 

BTW,  I think you are wrong about the level of resistance against the Iranian regime. Its not the most popular government in the world, but certainly not the most hated either. Its far more popular than the Saudi or Bahreini dictatorships for sure.

And thanks for reinforcing my point earlier - its neighbours are unstable as well.  Its an unstable region. 

Unstable to me, means risk of violent conflict. Absent a military action by the US or Israel, I see no such threat whatsoever. Iran is at peace with its neighbors and has been for decades (aside from Iraq, thats fairly recent). The only thing that really makes the region so unstable is US and Israel.

why are you banging on about it being so stable?

You tell me, you brought up stability up as a reason somehow for denying Iran their sovereign rights?

[Hawker]

...snip...

You tell me, you brought up stability up as a reason somehow for denying Iran their sovereign rights?

Read my posts.  I said its a bad thing that they will have the bomb but that there is no way to stop them. 

[molecular]

slightly ot, but: yesssss!

http://rt.com/news/iran-india-gold-oil-543/

Sanctions dodge: India to pay gold for Iran oil, China may follow

[P4man]

Read my posts.  I said its a bad thing that they will have the bomb but that there is no way to stop them.  

And I disagree on all accounts. I disagree "instability" plays a role (*). I disagree that they will have a bomb; even US intelligence agencies say they are not working on one. I disagree they could not be stopped if ever they changed their mind, which they can not do in secret.  And Im not even sure if somehow they got nukes, it would be so terrible. Not when North Korea, Israel and particularly Pakistan and India have them. Iranian Mullahs may be religious nuts, they are neither suicidal nor genocidal. They would have absolutely no reason to use them first. None. I would worry more about the Israeli arsenal.

(*) if anything all the warmongering, sanctions and threats -not too mention, terrorist attacks inside Iran-  to counter a non-existent nuclear weapon program are causing instability and inciting Iran to develop nukes if for no other reason as M.A.D. self defense. If you really dont want Iran to have nukes, then keep them in the NPT, rather than deny them what they are explicitly entitled to within the NPT and at the same time give them every reason to leave the NPT. A 6 year old could understand that, clearly the issue isnt iranian nukes.

[Hawker]

Read my posts.  I said its a bad thing that they will have the bomb but that there is no way to stop them.  

And I disagree on all accounts. I disagree "instability" plays a role (*). I disagree that they will have a bomb; even US intelligence agencies say they are not working on one. I disagree they could not be stopped if ever they changed their mind, which they can not do in secret.  And Im not even sure if somehow they got nukes, it would be so terrible. Not when North Korea, Israel and particularly Pakistan and India have them. Iranian Mullahs may be religious nuts, they are neither suicidal nor genocidal. They would have absolutely no reason to use them first. None. I would worry more about the Israeli arsenal.

(*) if anything all the warmongering, sanctions and threats -not too mention, terrorist attacks inside Iran-  to counter a non-existent nuclear weapon program are causing instability and inciting Iran to develop nukes if for no other reason as M.A.D. self defense. If you really dont want Iran to have nukes, then keep them in the NPT, rather than deny them what they are explicitly entitled to within the NPT and at the same time give them every reason to leave the NPT. A 6 year old could understand that, clearly the issue isnt iranian nukes.

You are entitled to disagree.  I regard a regime that relies on mass murder to remain in power as unstable - you regard it as stable. 

I believe Iran is creating the capacity to make nukes. Given their history of Western powers overthrowing democratic governments in pursuit of oil concessions, the Irans would be daft not to.

You seem to think that it is easy to stop them - Iran is not a pushover.  Air strikes can only slow things down and rally support for the regime.  An invasion would cost too much in blood and treasure.  Iran won't be stopped easily if at all.

You don't think its a bad idea if every country has its own nuclear arsenal.  My view is that the more countries have nukes, the greater the probability they will be used.  Every addition to the nuclear club is a ratcheting up of the risk.

[P4man]

You are entitled to disagree.  I regard a regime that relies on mass murder to remain in power as unstable - you regard it as stable.  

First, please dont twist my words.
Secondly, dont exaggerate  Depending on source Iran does 180 to 250 executions per year, most of them for actual criminal offenses. The US isnt that far behind in its number of executions. Compared to European countries you could regard the US regime as mass murders. Im against capital punishment, but the Iranian regime is not nearly as diabolical as what the western media try to make them. Even Colombia kills more political opponents than Iran, but that doesnt often make the press in the US Im sure.

I believe Iran is creating the capacity to make nukes.

To some extend, yes they are. Precisely what they are allowed under the NPT treaty which sole purpose is avoiding proliferation of nuclear weapons, a treaty Iran signed and adheres to, while the existing nuclear powers blatantly violate that same treaty. You have to draw the line somewhere; if you want to prevent countries from obtaining nukes you could keep their population illiterate and claim literacy is a first step to developing nukes. Thats of course ridiculous. The NPT is completely sane and logical line in the sand and a pretty good guarantee. Either stick to it, or encourage proliferation. You cant have it both ways. Iran is entitled to uranium enrichment for civilian use.

Given their history of Western powers overthrowing democratic governments in pursuit of oil concessions, the Irans would be daft not to.

Hey, for once,  I agree. We are giving them every possible reason to pull out of the NPT and actually develop nukes. And yet they dont. I give credit to the Iranians for not doing that. Their religious nutheads even pronounced a fatwa on nuclear weapons. Id like Christian nutheads to do the same.

You seem to think that it is easy to stop them - Iran is not a pushover.

 

I never said that. All I said is that under the NPT safeguards, Iran can not build a nuclear weapon without us knowing. So if ever they pull out, THEN you could consider whatever it takes, even a full blown war. Youd still have years to plan for that.

You don't think its a bad idea if every country has its own nuclear arsenal.  

Again you twist my words. If you are worried about a nuclear war in the middle east, my top priority would be getting all countries to enter the NPT and stick with the NPT. ITs not perfect, but its the best we have to prevent proliferation. Bombing and sanctioning  Iran while it adheres to the NPT achieves  the exact opposite. So why dont we focus on sanctioning Israel?

[TECSHARE]

Russian expert: Iran will be apparently attacked from Georgia’s territory http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/86722/

[Hawker]

Russian expert: Iran will be apparently attacked from Georgia’s territory http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/86722/

Any minute now...

[Hawker]

...snip...

Again you twist my words. If you are worried about a nuclear war in the middle east, my top priority would be getting all countries to enter the NPT and stick with the NPT. ITs not perfect, but its the best we have to prevent proliferation. Bombing and sanctioning  Iran while it adheres to the NPT achieves  the exact opposite. So why dont we focus on sanctioning Israel?

I don't believe Iran will give up on the bomb.  Its got proven oil and gas resources that mean it will always be a target for foreign takeovers and the lesson of Iraq and North Korea is that having a nuke means no risk of invasion.  The NPT is not going to stop it.

The US will never sanction Israel so why waste time arguing for it?