Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Careful, Gino - you know we're looking for a new SecState, right?

Be careful, or you'll find yourself being made an honorary American citizen! (And then you'll lose your healthcare)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Careful, Gino - you know we're looking for a new SecState, right?

Be careful, or you'll find yourself being made an honorary American citizen! (And then you'll lose your healthcare)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

---

I don't think I fit the evil criteria necessary for the position...

you need to delivery the blood of six newborn babies in a blueberry smoothy to Cheney still right ?




But seriously, who would you pick to replace Hillary?




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

"If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, that hope disappears," she said, "because then other countries which feel threatened by Iran will say to themselves, 'If Iran has a nuclear weapon, I better get one, too, in order to protect my people.' "

Doesn't this argue for Iran to get some weapons ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Why does the fact that Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and India have nukes make Iran's nuclear ambitions less threatening? I lean heavily to the left, but I don't really like the idea of a repressive theocracy that has promised to destroy its neighbors, and eagerly anticipates the end times, having nukes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Why does the fact that Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and India have nukes make Iran's nuclear ambitions less threatening? I lean heavily to the left, but I don't really like the idea of a repressive theocracy that has promised to destroy its neighbors, and eagerly anticipates the end times, having nukes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Why does the fact that Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and India have nukes make Iran's nuclear ambitions less threatening? I lean heavily to the left, but I don't really like the idea of a repressive theocracy that has promised to destroy its neighbors, and eagerly anticipates the end times, having nukes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust ANYONE with nukes, why should I trust Iran?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlebird:

Edit: I see Kwicko beat me to the punch on this one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust ANYONE with nukes, why should I trust Iran?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com]

But if you were surrounded by countrys with nukes,

and you had a pair with the record of Israel and the US making daily threats against you... ( and that hostility predates the nuke power program )

Would you not want to protect yourself ?

The best solution would be Pakistan, India, and Israel giving theirs up and the US getting out of the region... but that likely will not happen...

what do you do ?

---

That's the rub isn't it? To pursue nukes only makes that target on your back larger. To pursue higher grade enrichment Publicly only insights the US - that seems a big flaw in the reasoning of "if you want to protect yourself..."
I'd come out in favor of peace and win the world's favor. I know, quaint!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust ANYONE with nukes, why should I trust Iran?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com]

But if you were surrounded by countrys with nukes,

and you had a pair with the record of Israel and the US making daily threats against you... ( and that hostility predates the nuke power program )

Would you not want to protect yourself ?

The best solution would be Pakistan, India, and Israel giving theirs up and the US getting out of the region... but that likely will not happen...

what do you do ?

---

That's the rub isn't it? To pursue nukes only makes that target on your back larger. To pursue higher grade enrichment Publicly only insights the US - that seems a big flaw in the reasoning of "if you want to protect yourself..."
I'd come out in favor of peace and win the world's favor. I know, quaint!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

---

You know the phrase you can't fight city hall ?

Well if they ended their public arguments and move for nuclear power ( remember they say they are not making weapons ), what is to stop the US from coming out with more RapFacts and accuse them of building weapons anyway... like say Iraq ?

Besides, it is now a matter of national pride to get their nuclear power generation plan off the ground, to back down would make them look all manner of stupid to their own people.

I think its better they have nukes, it would shut down the sabre rattling against them and give them a voice in the region the US could not so easily ignore, and that voice would represent alot of folk who have no voice in the US installed regimes.

edit to add, like the post at the beginning, over 40 countrys already enrich Uranium as they want to... why pick on them ?











Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:


It's WORLD politics. If you think local is crazed and full of paranoia this is even worse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Gotta agree with Gino, Piz. Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons, and soon. Otherwise, we might decide to invade. As we've already shown with Iraq and North Korea: If we THINK you're trying to get them, we'll invade; if we KNOW you already have them... we'll talk.

The only way Iran gets a seat at the big boys' table is if they have nuclear weapons. Those aren't THEIR rules; they're ours. At least that's the example we've set.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Yeah, bad analogy, but you get a pass since I know what you are going for. That was within this country = different.

Guys, I know what you are saying but I also know you don't know what's in Ahmadinejad's heart and soul (pls, no Bush references) so you don't win me over. "If you're guessing then you don't know." And with Iran we'll be guessing for a long time. Tomorrow, if they put you in charge of US security (not you Gino) are you going to be so trusting?

It's WORLD politics. If you think local is crazed and full of paranoia this is even worse.

Gino - my favorite thing you said is other countries not feeling like they need to do what the US says. No one likes a bully - we've got a lot of repairing and bridge building to do. OBAMA'S NOT HELPING. Sorry for the caps - I'm starting to get pissed when I think of him. It's a slow process but no matter what I think of O. I feel like we're making the turn.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Gotta agree with Gino, Piz. Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons, and soon. Otherwise, we might decide to invade. As we've already shown with Iraq and North Korea: If we THINK you're trying to get them, we'll invade; if we KNOW you already have them... we'll talk.

The only way Iran gets a seat at the big boys' table is if they have nuclear weapons. Those aren't THEIR rules; they're ours. At least that's the example we've set.

---

We can't even handle 2 military locations Mike, Iran has to see that. They're just posturing. That's almost ALL they do.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

---

Quote:

---

I'm not more scared of a nuclear Iran than I am of a nuclear Israel, Pakistan, or United States.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

I'm not more scared of a nuclear Iran than I am of a nuclear Israel, Pakistan, or United States.

---

Well there's that prospect of a middle east nuclear arms race that might concern you a little bit.

Ultimately whether you think non-proliferation is hypocritical or not, this ultimately becomes a question of whether we *want* every country that desires its own nukes to have them, or not (or, like Gino, whether you think a country like Iran acquiring a nuke would improve the nuclear balance).

If no to both questions, then non-proliferation is an imperative - and one we can't afford to not enforce rigidly.

A debate on the apparent hypocrisy is ok I guess - it speaks to the question of whether all nations should reduce their nuclear arsenals in the future, or eliminate them completely (there'd be downsides to this, even if it could be achieved). But I question the value of apathy/hand-wringing on this issue...

Heads should roll

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Yeah, bad analogy, but you get a pass since I know what you are going for. That was within this country = different.

Guys, I know what you are saying but I also know you don't know what's in Ahmadinejad's heart and soul (pls, no Bush references) so you don't win me over. "If you're guessing then you don't know." And with Iran we'll be guessing for a long time. Tomorrow, if they put you in charge of US security (not you Gino) are you going to be so trusting?

It's WORLD politics. If you think local is crazed and full of paranoia this is even worse.

Gino - my favorite thing you said is other countries not feeling like they need to do what the US says. No one likes a bully - we've got a lot of repairing and bridge building to do. OBAMA'S NOT HELPING. Sorry for the caps - I'm starting to get pissed when I think of him. It's a slow process but no matter what I think of O. I feel like we're making the turn.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Gotta agree with Gino, Piz. Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons, and soon. Otherwise, we might decide to invade. As we've already shown with Iraq and North Korea: If we THINK you're trying to get them, we'll invade; if we KNOW you already have them... we'll talk.

The only way Iran gets a seat at the big boys' table is if they have nuclear weapons. Those aren't THEIR rules; they're ours. At least that's the example we've set.

---

We can't even handle 2 military locations Mike, Iran has to see that. They're just posturing. That's almost ALL they do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Yeah, bad analogy, but you get a pass since I know what you are going for. That was within this country = different.

Guys, I know what you are saying but I also know you don't know what's in Ahmadinejad's heart and soul (pls, no Bush references) so you don't win me over. "If you're guessing then you don't know." And with Iran we'll be guessing for a long time. Tomorrow, if they put you in charge of US security (not you Gino) are you going to be so trusting?

It's WORLD politics. If you think local is crazed and full of paranoia this is even worse.

Gino - my favorite thing you said is other countries not feeling like they need to do what the US says. No one likes a bully - we've got a lot of repairing and bridge building to do. OBAMA'S NOT HELPING. Sorry for the caps - I'm starting to get pissed when I think of him. It's a slow process but no matter what I think of O. I feel like we're making the turn.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

---

I know you said not me, but I will answer that anyway pizmo, it is a good point you make.

I would let them have their nuclear power... and if they felt they needed to go to nuclear weapons, well ok

but that line about great power equals great responsibility...

You make the point ( not just with them, but everyone with nukes... ) perhaps a new treaty would be quite appropriate, that such weapons are for defensive purposes only, and that any country launching a first strike with them, or passing weapons or tech to third party automatically becomes the enemy of all the other signatorys...

ie Iran pre-emptively nukes Israel, US, Russia and China Nukes Iran

or US nukes Iran pre-emptively then Russia, China, and India nukes US

legal use requires a majority vote, or you are the next target...

some type of collective security arrangement that would make these weapons one of very last resort ie never to be used, including American ones.

Because Bush aside, why trust US leaders either ?

" That was within this country = different. "

why does it have to be ? if we reguarded folk as folk and treated everyone else as we would be treated, and not vilify some with RappyFacts when it suits us... would not many of our problems go away ?

sure it is bigger than individuals, but why do group rights fiqure lower than individual rights ?

as a species I think we need to have more respect for each other, and forget the race, religion, citizenship crap that divides us... that will be the next big evolution.

or maybe I'm too optimistic



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

I'm not more scared of a nuclear Iran than I am of a nuclear Israel, Pakistan, or United States.

---

Well there's that prospect of a middle east nuclear arms race that might concern you a little bit.

Ultimately whether you think non-proliferation is hypocritical or not, this ultimately becomes a question of whether we *want* every country that desires its own nukes to have them, or not (or, like Gino, whether you think a country like Iran acquiring a nuke would improve the nuclear balance).

If no to both questions, then non-proliferation is an imperative - and one we can't afford to not enforce rigidly.

A debate on the apparent hypocrisy is ok I guess - it speaks to the question of whether all nations should reduce their nuclear arsenals in the future, or eliminate them completely (there'd be downsides to this, even if it could be achieved). But I question the value of apathy/hand-wringing on this issue...

Heads should roll

---

Like I said earlier...

If heading off an arms race is so important, why didn't this come up with Israels nukes ?

There was attempts to stop Pakistan, but as India was there to, it was let go to preserve a balance...

I would be all for making the middle east a nuclear weapons free zone, but don't see how it could be done. How willing would Israel be to give up their arsenal ?

Are you willing to start another war over this KPO ?

and this time with a country that hasn't been starved, bombed and terrorized into submission for a decade ?

I think nothing would unite Iran, like the US firing missiles into their country, and I really believe they would not let that stand...

Your troops in Iraq could face not only a Shia uprising, but a full on Iranian counter attack at the same time...

It is not an issue for the US to decide anymore,

unless your going to use nukes, and become what you say you fear them of them becoming...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Yeah, bad analogy, but you get a pass since I know what you are going for. That was within this country = different.

Guys, I know what you are saying but I also know you don't know what's in Ahmadinejad's heart and soul (pls, no Bush references) so you don't win me over. "If you're guessing then you don't know." And with Iran we'll be guessing for a long time. Tomorrow, if they put you in charge of US security (not you Gino) are you going to be so trusting?

It's WORLD politics. If you think local is crazed and full of paranoia this is even worse.

Gino - my favorite thing you said is other countries not feeling like they need to do what the US says. No one likes a bully - we've got a lot of repairing and bridge building to do. OBAMA'S NOT HELPING. Sorry for the caps - I'm starting to get pissed when I think of him. It's a slow process but no matter what I think of O. I feel like we're making the turn.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

---

I know you said not me, but I will answer that anyway pizmo, it is a good point you make.

I would let them have their nuclear power... and if they felt they needed to go to nuclear weapons, well ok

but that line about great power equals great responsibility...

You make the point ( not just with them, but everyone with nukes... ) perhaps a new treaty would be quite appropriate, that such weapons are for defensive purposes only, and that any country launching a first strike with them, or passing weapons or tech to third party automatically becomes the enemy of all the other signatorys...

ie Iran pre-emptively nukes Israel, US, Russia and China Nukes Iran

or US nukes Iran pre-emptively then Russia, China, and India nukes US

legal use requires a majority vote, or you are the next target...

some type of collective security arrangement that would make these weapons one of very last resort ie never to be used, including American ones.

Because Bush aside, why trust US leaders either ?

" That was within this country = different. "

why does it have to be ? if we reguarded folk as folk and treated everyone else as we would be treated, and not vilify some with RappyFacts when it suits us... would not many of our problems go away ?

sure it is bigger than individuals, but why do group rights fiqure lower than individual rights ?

as a species I think we need to have more respect for each other, and forget the race, religion, citizenship crap that divides us... that will be the next big evolution.

or maybe I'm too optimistic



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

---

Yes. And I'd also include in that great responsibility the idea that we tell Iran point blank: "You want to pursue nuclear weapons? That's your right, but know this: Fully one third of our CONSIDERABLE nuclear arsenal is now targeted at every city in your country, every town of over a hundred people. If ONE mishap occurs, if even ONE of your nuclear weapons finds its way into the hands of any rogue nation or terrorist group, we will hold you responsible for their actions, and your entire nation, your culture, your history, and your people will simply cease to exist, and will be forever lost in the dustbin of history. But hey, have fun with your toys!"

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust ANYONE with nukes, why should I trust Iran?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com]

But if you were surrounded by countrys with nukes,

and you had a pair with the record of Israel and the US making daily threats against you... ( and that hostility predates the nuke power program )

Would you not want to protect yourself ?

The best solution would be Pakistan, India, and Israel giving theirs up and the US getting out of the region... but that likely will not happen...

what do you do ?

---

That's the rub isn't it? To pursue nukes only makes that target on your back larger. To pursue higher grade enrichment Publicly only insights the US - that seems a big flaw in the reasoning of "if you want to protect yourself..."
I'd come out in favor of peace and win the world's favor. I know, quaint!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com]

---

I seen this and I think it addresses what you were asking maybe a little more clearly than I did


http://blogs.aljazeera.net/imperium/2010/02/17/irans-unambiguous-ambig
uity

Iran's unambiguous ambiguity

"What is Iran hiding?" asked Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, rhetorically.

It is, she concluded on the basis of "mounting evidence" - read circumstantial evidence - developing "nuclear weapons" and that is not acceptable to the US.

True, Iran is not coming clean on its intentions over its nuclear programme. Rather it is doing the absolute minimum under its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations to underline how its nuclear programme is civilian in nature, when UN resolutions and mounting suspicion require more.

But states are in the business of hiding their intentions, especially concerning national security and sovereignty. If they were forthcoming and transparent, intelligence services would not exist.

Actually, Tehran is managing a sensitive, even dangerous balancing act. It reveals the minimum required by its international obligations while making bombastic statements about its breakthroughs in nuclear enrichment.

As it tries to please the IAEA as an accountable member of the international community, it annoys, even embarrasses, the US and its European partners to please its nationalistic popular base.

Nuclear made unclear

Why would Iran go through the trouble and risk of igniting stiffer sanctions and possible military attack?

Arguably because it reckons that is the best way to safeguard its national sovereignty and strategic deterrence in a region dominated by a US and Western military presence.

Iraq, if we care to remember, was also ambiguous about its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programme prior to the 2003 US-led invasion.

As the regime of Saddam Hussein complied with related international resolutions and destroyed all traces of whatever WMD programme (imagined or real) it had, it continued its political posturing just as it maintained its ambiguous military posture.

After his capture, Saddam Hussein told his US jailors that Baghdad did not come clean because the regime was concerned with maintaining a minimum deterrence towards Tehran. The same applied to Washington.

The Iranian regime which stood silent, even complicit, as the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, in the hope of gaining favour and influence, found itself vulnerable after 2004 when the Bush administration went wild in its crusade to transform the region's politics and stood by Israel as it invaded South Lebanon in 2006 to take on Tehran's ally, Hezbollah.

Remember in 2007, the most authoritative arm of the US government on the subject, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), concluded with "high confidence" that "in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme".

What is Washington hiding?

Today, as the Obama administration escalates its war in Afghanistan, redeploys in and out of Iraq, and appeases Israel, Tehran is making sure that its security is not discounted and its interests are not taken for granted.

President Obama is well aware of Tehran's strategic anxiety and its search for strategic accommodation with Washington.

Which explains why, only a few weeks after taking office, Obama spoke directly to the 'great Iranian nation' on the occasion of Nowruz - the Persian new year - of 'extending a hand to Tehran if it unclenched its fist'.

He also promised a new approach driven by pragmatism, not ideology, and on the basis of "mutual interest and mutual respect". He later approved direct negotiations with Iran - the first since 1979.

But the Iranians have rejected America's demand that talks be limited to their nuclear programme, especially when that is the domain of the IAEA, not the US and its NATO allies.

If Washington's agenda is nuclear, Tehran's agenda is national security and its future role in the region.

That is why it is disingenuous of the US secretary of state to claim that Iran refuses to sit down with Washington, and neglects to mention how Washington will not sit down with Iran to discuss the latter's regional concerns.

With its neighbours to the north and south - Iraq and Afghanistan - occupied by the US and as it is threatened by Israel, Tehran demands explicit recognition of Iran's regional status and long-term US commitments and assurances.

Which begs the question: Is the Obama administration ready to discuss Iran's vision of the region or to recognise Iran's regional power with all that it invokes in Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Cairo?

Judging from the ongoing US diplomatic offensive, that is not likely for now.

Back to the future

Instead, Washington has pursued three possible alternatives: Charm/conciliation, coercion/sanctions and regime change/war.

Since the charm offensive failed to slow down Iran's uranium enrichment, let alone stop it or tone down the bombastic rhetoric, the Obama administration is moving towards the second option: Sanctions and isolation.

Its first signs were revealed on the eve of Obama's visit to China last November. He reportedly dispatched special Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to explain to the Chinese the logic behind US pressure on Iran and the danger of the alternative scenarios, such as an Israeli military operation against the Iranian nuclear programme.

Since then attempts at imposing new sanctions have grown more urgent.

Naval US deployments to the Gulf to 'defend' its allies from possible Iranian missile attack (!), through to Clinton's visit this week to enlist the support of Washington's Arab and Turkish allies, are escalating US diplomatic pressure on Iran and signal a dramatic shift in US policy despite continued hesitation, even aversion, to its new position from its interlocutors.

If sanctions do not force the increasingly "military dictatorship" to give up its nuclear enrichment, to use Clinton's words, Washington hopes Iran will implode from within in light of the potent opposition to the regime, saving America the trouble of waging another war in the Muslim world.

I expect Obama, who vowed to deny Iran nuclear weapons at any cost, to focus US efforts on sanctions and coercion in order to diminish Tehran's leverage as it bargains over its nuclear programme.

As for the war option, it will remain on the table to intimidate Iran and to tame the reservations and outright objections from friend and foe alike.




Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/02/20102197251740380
0.html

'Resolutions unlawful'

Soltanieh said: "Repeated requests by the IAEA for further inspection are not acceptable for us.

"Iran will neither co-operate beyond the IAEA safeguards nor will it carry out demands of the United Nations resolutions."

He said Tehran's reasons for not doing so are that "Iran considers these resolutions to be contrary to international law".

While visiting Gulf states Saudi Arabia and Qatar earlier in thee week, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said Iran was heading towards a "military dictatorship" and warned it posed an international threat.


So the US is rewriting international law to suit their own agenda ...agian

hard to doubt that