livendive 8 #76 April 13, 2006 How about if we ran it like our tax system. The "have" countries could donate a percentage of the nuclear weapons in their arsenal to the "have-not" countries, each according to their ability to pay. It's just possible that one fuckload of the people in the world would suddenly be nicer to each other. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racer42 0 #77 April 13, 2006 Quotewell, you either believe that Iranian leaders merely wish to make themselves invasion proof and worry not so much about their threats against Israel, or you do everything and anything you can to stop them. And if your goal is more about maintaining the imbalance of power, you do the same. Israel has approximately 100 deliverable warheads. Iran has none and may or may not have any for some time to come. Better intelligence and less rhetoric would be part of the solution. If we stopped threatening everyone we disagree with could be another part of a solution. This is a complicated situation and calls for some creative diplomacy from many different avenues. An imbalance of power, by the way, can often be another part of a solution. Ronald Reagan used the collapsing weight of the Soviet Union, it's foolish invasion of Afghanistan and billions of American dollars to bring an end to the Cold War, without really firing a shot(at the Soviets). Not to shabby for an actor. PS. Get out your Atlas and your encyclopedia. If you think Iraq is a difficult country to control, have a look at Iran.L.A.S.T. #24 Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team Electric Toaster #3 Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor Co-Founder Team Happy Sock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #78 April 13, 2006 QuoteBecause it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. . Two words: AMADOU DIALLO... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #79 April 13, 2006 Quote PS. Get out your Atlas and your encyclopedia. If you think Iraq is a difficult country to control, have a look at Iran. And while everyone's got their atlas out, look at which countries share a border with Iran and think about the military conflicts which have occurred over the last few years. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #80 April 13, 2006 It's very simple: Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty". Iran Main article: Iran's nuclear program Iran is a signatory state of the NPT and has recently as of 2006 resumed development of its uranium enrichment program, obstensibly for its civilian nuclear energy program, as it is entitled to do under the terms of the NPT. It has been accused of reactivating this program to covertly develop an independent nuclear weapon program by the United States and European Union, in violation of the NPT. There has been some concern over the possibility of a nuclear armed Iranian state, with specific anxieties raised after controversial remarks made by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about the state of Israel [12]. Iran remains under investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency, who have currently presented no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Some argue that Iran's extensive oil and gas reserves cast doubt on the economic viability of purely civilian nuclear power. [citation needed] However modern economic theory holds that the relevant consideration is the "opportunity cost" of oil. The argument is that by burning oil internally, Iran must forgo revenue that would have come from selling the oil. Under this analysis Iran faces essentially the same choice in its oil-use decisions as an oil importer. In addition, some in Iran contend that the state is simply looking for alternative fuel sources, given that most estimates suggest that oil will be exhausted within 100 years. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. source. Iran wants to have it both ways, and both the US and the EU are calling bullshit on it, plain and simple. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #81 April 13, 2006 QuoteThe crooks & cops was an analogy about the possesion of nukes by Iran and the U.S. Obviously you've forgotten that origin and are now off on another topic. Unless you're saying that the U.S. was criminal to use two nukes to end WWII (and save millions of lives, both U.S. and Japanese, that would have otherwise been lost in an invasion of the home islands). Is that what you are claiming? No, I am trying to say that implying that the US is like cops who only would do good things with weapons (in this case nukes) is a fucking joke. You have invaded a souvereign country, murdered thousands on the whim of an idiot without a true official declaration of war, without any planning for what to do after your chimpanzee in chief had his photo op on an aircraft carrier.... And your argument is: "we are the good guys, we can have them cause you can trust us"......that is a fucking joke. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #82 April 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBecause it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, and that makes them like the crook. The U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. I think we should be careful to seperate the current government of Iran and the people of Iran. I sincerely doubt the people of Iran and the Mullahs that run the country share the same ideals. Perhaps, but the people don't have control over the nuclear program, or the potential use of developed weapons. Agreed. Now what? It will take Iran about two years to get the amount of enriched uranium they need for a bomb, and to build the bomb. It's a no-brainer that diplomacy and sanctions won't work with the current Iranian leaderss. So that's the time period in which the moderates in Iran better be starting a revolution to take back their country from the Islamic extremist agitators. If the Iranian people themselves don't do it from within, someone else will do it for them from without... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #83 April 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteBecause it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Two words: AMADOU DIALLO See message #70. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #84 April 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe crooks & cops was an analogy about the possesion of nukes by Iran and the U.S. Obviously you've forgotten that origin and are now off on another topic. Unless you're saying that the U.S. was criminal to use two nukes to end WWII (and save millions of lives, both U.S. and Japanese, that would have otherwise been lost in an invasion of the home islands). Is that what you are claiming? No, I am trying to say that implying that the US is like cops who only would do good things with weapons (in this case nukes) is a fucking joke. You have invaded a souvereign country, murdered thousands on the whim of an idiot without a true official declaration of war, without any planning for what to do after your chimpanzee in chief had his photo op on an aircraft carrier.... And your argument is: "we are the good guys, we can have them cause you can trust us"......that is a fucking joke. Who have we used our nukes against without just cause? Your diatribe belies your bias and propensity for U.S. bashing, which renders your comments intellectually valueless. But hey, I hope it made you feel better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #85 April 13, 2006 Iran can't have them because that country is run by a bunch of nutso fundamentalist religious extremists. Oh....wait..... Never mind Zipp0 -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #86 April 13, 2006 QuoteWho have we used our nukes against without just cause? so because you haven't done it in the past, means we have to trust you in the future? Regardless of the latest actions of the American government? Speaking of intellectually valueless..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #87 April 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. The last 14 US military adventures were offensive, not defensive. Starting with what conflict? I think Afghanistan can be argued as defensive in nature. Same for Korea back in the 50s. Otherwise, yes, I'd say so, and the fact that nukes never entered the equation tends to blunt your argument that it may change in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #88 April 13, 2006 Quote so because you haven't done it in the past, means we have to trust you in the future? well, yes. What is Canada going to do to change that fact of life? And track histories mean a lot. Even Nixon, who was invading countries in secret wars in a losing effort never resorted to nukes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #89 April 13, 2006 Quotewell, yes. What is Canada going to do to change that fact of life? probably nothing, but it is exactly that attitude that makes america "unliked" these days. QuoteAnd track histories mean a lot. Even Nixon, who was invading countries in secret wars in a losing effort never resorted to nukes Ohh okay, the argument is now, we have done bad things in the past and killed thousands, but trust us, we wouldn't do it witha nuke...really strong argument from a country led by a government that willfully ignored evidence to make their case for war stronger.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #90 April 13, 2006 Quote. . . the argument is now, we have done bad things in the past and killed thousands, but trust us, we wouldn't do it witha nuke... That's no argument at all. The argument is "we got 'em and you don't". History, trust, and fairness aren't any part of the picture. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #91 April 13, 2006 Quote Ohh okay, the argument is now, we have done bad things in the past and killed thousands, but trust us, we wouldn't do it witha nuke...really strong argument from a country led by a government that willfully ignored evidence to make their case for war stronger.... It might seem that way, but only to someone who can't understand that WMDs was never the reason that the US government wanted to depose Saddam. That was a means to an end, in the realm of propoganda. It tells you absolutely nothing about the potential change in probability that the US would nuke someone. Anyone asking the question that is the subject of this thread needs to grow up and see the real world. In the real world, fairness and hypocrisy are silly notions. It's very simple game theory involving relative power and the consequences of actions. the only recent change is that if a clearly identifiable nation does a devasting attack where hundreds of thousands of Americans die, a nuclear response is on the table. A chemical or biological attack is now equated with a nuclear one. But in no other circumstances does it make sense for a country to drop the bomb. The outcome tree is all negative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stoneycase 0 #92 April 14, 2006 QuoteIt will take Iran about two years to get the amount of enriched uranium they need for a bomb, and to build the bomb. It's a no-brainer that diplomacy and sanctions won't work with the current Iranian leaderss. So that's the time period in which the moderates in Iran better be starting a revolution to take back their country from the Islamic extremist agitators. If the Iranian people themselves don't do it from within, someone else will do it for them from without... "I don't know what weapons will be used to fight WWIII, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones" - Einstein Neither India, nor Pakistan has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, yet we aren't all wound up about their nuclear arms, are we? Why should we be? The two countries only *despise* each other. Yet Iran has signed on to the treaty... double standard? Think about who borders Iran. We're in two of the countries bordering Iran engaged in a "War on Terrorism". Israel's in their backyard. Not a whole lot of "outs" for them. I bet this sounds horrible, but I can't fault them for wanting nuclear weapons. Nobody enjoys being bullied. and imho, we aren't the ones to worry about when it comes to Iran, it's Israel. if you want put your microscope on someone, and watch them fuck up, put it on Israel. $1 says Israel responds to Iran faster than we ever could (or want to). and another $10 says we get *dragged* into the mess, rather than starting it ourselves. (course you could always put on the tinfoil and say we're pulling israel's strings...)Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #93 April 14, 2006 QuoteIt's very simple: Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty". Do you have any idea how many treaties the USA signed with the various indian nations, and then broke as soon as it was convenient? The USA doesn't have a leg to stand on with that argument.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #94 April 14, 2006 >It will take Iran about two years to get the amount of enriched >uranium they need for a bomb, and to build the bomb. Where do you get that? The DIA estimates it will take them ten years - and that's if everything goes perfectly, and they move full speed ahead. Heck, even if they started enriching around the clock it would take them 13 years to get enough uranium for a single weapon. Edited to add - I just figured out where the two year thing is coming from. "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." - GWB, 9/28/2002 "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." - GWB, 10/7/02 Looks like it's starting again. Next we will hear how they really _want_ a peaceful solution, and will ask Congress for authorization for the use of force - as an absolute last resort, of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #95 April 14, 2006 QuoteThe USA doesn't have a leg to stand on with that argument. Looking at a map of the USA, I see several pan handles, a glove, some cake pans, a wang (Florida is america's wang), a fist, Minnesota down to Louisiana looks a bit like a guy in profile wearing a tall hat, a couple Island series, rectangles,... no leg ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,447 #96 April 14, 2006 [eye-rolling icon thingie]Now Bill! Let them have their fun . Just remember that if Johnny jumped out of an airplane -- oh wait, yes we would Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #97 April 14, 2006 Quote[eye-rolling icon thingie]Now Bill! Let them have their fun . Just remember that if Johnny jumped out of an airplane -- oh wait, yes we would Johnny's jumping out of a plane? WHERE? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #98 April 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe USA doesn't have a leg to stand on with that argument. Looking at a map of the USA, I see several pan handles, a glove, some cake pans, a wang (Florida is america's wang), a fist, Minnesota down to Louisiana looks a bit like a guy in profile wearing a tall hat, a couple Island series, rectangles,... no leg West Virginia looks like a hand flipping the bird. Just thought I'd add to the highbrow perspective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #99 April 14, 2006 QuoteWest Virginia looks like a hand flipping the bird. Just thought I'd add to the highbrow perspective. Texas looks like the end of a shovel. Hummmmm, very interesting, (thoughtful expression, rubbing chin) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #100 April 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteWho have we used our nukes against without just cause? so because you haven't done it in the past, means we have to trust you in the future? Regardless of the latest actions of the American government? First of all, whatever "latest actions" you refer to, have not involved any threats of nuclear action. Now a short quiz for you: 1) Who has the U.S. been threatening to exterminate with nuclear strikes? 2) Who has Iran been threatening to exterminate? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
