Iran test fires missiles during war games

[Jingthing]

Limitation of nuclear proliferation is an INTERNATIONAL goal. That includes currently nuclear countries gradually stepping down the numbers such as the USA-Russia treaty, and international efforts to deter new countries from getting them. Each national case is different. The wider acceptance of India's program is an example. Maybe that is the way it will go with Iran eventually as their program becomes inevitable but right now the effort to stop them is very defensible.

[flying]

Limitation of nuclear proliferation is an INTERNATIONAL goal. That includes currently nuclear countries gradually stepping down the numbers such as the USA-Russia treaty, and international efforts to deter new countries from getting them. Each national case is different. The wider acceptance of India's program is an example. Maybe that is the way it will go with Iran eventually as their program becomes inevitable but right now the effort to stop them is very defensible.

As I said the treaties have been ignored for years as to the stepping down.

As for your claim of..."right now the effort to stop them is very defensible"

Defensive = Intended to withstand or deter aggression or attack:

Offensive = Making an attack, Causing anger, displeasure, resentment,

Again Iran has never shown themselves to be aggressive to the US or Israel

So this attack on them through sanctions & who knows what is to come is far from any form of defense nor is it defend-able in the light of facts/reality of what IS not what COULD BE.

Edited January 4, 2012 by flying

[Jingthing]

...

Again Iran has never shown themselves to be aggressive to the US or Israel

...

Both the US and Israel consider Iran an enemy power and Iran considers both the US and Israel enemy powers. Iran has attacked Israel through proxy powers (Hamas and others). The USA has not forgotten what Iran did at the USA embassy in Iran which was American territory as well Iranian support of Al Queda (attacks in 2001, etc.) and attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. Americans shouldn't have been in Iraq, but that's another story.

I don't know who you think you're fooling with your line that Iran is a benign power. It actually sounds like the kind of silly assertion you would expect to get directly from Iranian propaganda or that Russian tv channel that does pro Iranian propaganda.

Anyway, it hardly matters what Iran defenders/supporters/apologists think. The west is united in its desire to stop Iran from going nuclear. That is happening now with strong sanctions. Will something that Iran, the US with ships, or Israel does start some kind of more overt war (there is already a soft war)? Who knows?

I am not sure the question of who starts this war if it will be war is very important/relevant to the politics of all this, except for propaganda on both sides. In war situations, both sides always have their own propaganda and blame games. My point is the war mentality is already in place in both Iran and the west. Warlike actions have already, long ago, been taken by both sides.

Yes, Iran could stop this from happening by agreeing to a credible compromise for a peaceful nuclear program. We know they won't. Yes, the west could say, let Iran go ahead and trust them. We know they won't. Iran apologists can argue that they should be trusted, but that would be a futile argument. So now yes there is warlike posturing. No surprise.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[flying]

Both the US and Israel consider Iran an enemy power and Iran considers both the US and Israel enemy powers. Iran has attacked Israel through proxy powers (Hamas and others). The USA has not forgotten what Iran did at the USA embassy in Iran which was American territory as well Iranian support of Al Queda (attacks in 2001, etc.) and attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. Americans shouldn't have been in Iraq, but that's another story.

I don't know who you think you're fooling with your line that Iran is a benign power. It actually sounds like the kind of silly assertion you would expect to get directly from Iranian propaganda or that Russian tv channel that does pro Iranian propaganda.

Yes without getting off topic I will say the event you mention about the embassy was an effect after a US cause Thats the facts......look them up.

As for your "who your fooling" yada yada yada......again just the facts please.

Don't play a anti card here as you so often like to do:-)

Facts are facts & plain to see in this case as well as others

Lets just say I know where you stand & you know where I do.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

[koheesti]

How can someone be anti-nuke yet think Iran has the right to get nukes? It makes no sense. JT is right, the USA & Russia have greatly reduced their nuke stockpiles from Cold War levels. Just because they still have some DOES NOT mean that everyone should have them - especially unstable countries rules by religious extremists like Iran. Anyone who is anti-nuke should be applauding ANY effort to stop Iran from getting them. Because when the Shia Persians get one, you can bet your ass that in a short time the Sunni Arabs will get one as well. Probably not long after that the anti-nuke crowd will really have something to cry about. At least then all the oil will be free for the taking - and it will glow in the dark!

[Ulysses G.]

We in the West have just imposed unilateral sanctions on them causing a massive slump in their economy and the 'drying up' of oil shipments. What do you expect them to do.

Live up to their word and stop making Nukes.

[Ulysses G.]

Again Iran has never shown themselves to be aggressive to the US or Israel

Not unless you consider constant threats, sponsoring terrorists and terrorism that targets both countries and trying to develop illegal Nukes to be "aggressive".

[nurofiend]

Beating a dead horse. Deal with reality as it is now. No country with nukes has ever given them all up, have they?

Iraq did when the US knew they definitely had nukes and came in and bombed the shit out of them didn't they? oh wait

but imposing sanctions and going to war on hunches seems to be just alrighty

amurrrrica... fuc_k yeah!

Edited January 5, 2012 by nurofiend

[Ulysses G.]

Iraq had a nuclear program which they abandoned when they knew the US was coming after them,. Unfortunately for him, Saddham would not allow nuclear inspectors to do their job, so he had to be taken out.

After the IAEA report, there is no doubt amongst sane people that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, so they need to close down the program or face the consequences.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

How can someone be anti-nuke yet think Iran has the right to get nukes? It makes no sense.

Actually it makes perfect sense...........Unless all are giving them up

But in your limited view only the *good* guys have them right?

So that is ok then?

No I think I will stick with my opinion & mind you that is all it is.

It is no different than gun laws.........They strangle the folks who legally acquire or have the RIGHT to acquire.

Yet the bad guys still freely acquire them.

So we are back to the same here..........Your premise is only good guys HAVE nukes? Only good guys CAN HAVE nukes?

No Thanks......These days I am hard pressed to tell the good from the bad

In FACT if I leave off reading the program aka: media blitz & use my eyes & brain to judge by their actions....

I would bet those you claim are good & should be allowed in my opinion & judged by their ACTIONS ware would be deemed quite BAD

Edited January 5, 2012 by flying

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. In general this thread has been quite civil in the discussion of the issue and staying away from jibes and baiting of other posters. Keeping it that way makes it much easier and much more informative.

Thanks for the cooperation.

[nurofiend]

Iraq had a nuclear program which they abandoned when they knew the US was coming after them,. Unfortunately for him, Saddham would not allow nuclear inspectors to do their job, so he had to be taken out.

After the IAEA report, there is no doubt amongst sane people that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, so they need to close down the program or face the consequences.

"As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses"

i don't want to get into an Iraq debate but you used the phrase "there is no doubt amongst sane people" in your post and i tie that phrase to the belief that invading Iraq was wrong, extremely wrong...

plenty of people who were calling for it have admitted this and plenty of soldiers alike... i'll say no more about it, you clearly have your views and i have mine.

back on topic, they probably have a weapons programme in progress, yes... do they have wmd's now?...i strongly doubt it and that seems to be the general consensus among experts.

so what's the answer? nuke Iran? wipe them off the planet? or attack their nuclear facilities, inevitably leading to innocent deaths (and possible all out war) and then wait some more years and do the same again, and again, and again? or invade the country and take it over?

what's your idea on what should happen if Iran don't roll over when they're pushed into the corner?

[GentlemanJim]

Iraq had a nuclear program which they abandoned when they knew the US was coming after them,. Unfortunately for him, Saddham would not allow nuclear inspectors to do their job, so he had to be taken out.

After the IAEA report, there is no doubt amongst sane people that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, so they need to close down the program or face the consequences.

"As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses"

edited rest out for brevity.

Neurofiend

A few of us have tried quoting that factual phrase before, but it seems to be invisible to those that are hankering for a fight (that is those that want other young men and women to go to another illegal unfounded war on their behalf and die along with innocent civilians while they sit in their armchairs swigging another cold beer). Your words are completely appropriate and true but will fall upon blind eyes and deaf ears. They will continue to spout off in armchair expert opinions how they know for sure that Iran is developing nukes. Seems we don't really need the IAEA, whats the point after all, the only answer the warmongers want is that Iran is building nukes, and if a report says no they spin it to say yes.

It reminds me a little of the witch hunts in the middle ages. Throw the alleged witch in the pond with her hands tied behind her back, if she sinks and drowns she is innocent, if she floats, she is a witch so burn her! We truly have descended back to the same madness.

This clip does sum up beautifully the attitudes towards Iran and the desire to go to war whatever.

Jingthing

All of your arguments and logic are completely flawed by your bias towards 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' with your two 'favourite Governments' Your comments concerning Iran's bad behaviour seem to ignore what happened beforehand because of US intervention that caused the 'blowback'. It helps your credibility if you present the complete picture, not just what you want to use to make your argument work. Do you have any idea how many terrorist organizations have been sponsored by the US and Israel? Now where has that wall gone so that I can bang my head on it some more.

Edited January 5, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[Jingthing]

Jingthing

All of your arguments and logic are completely flawed by your bias towards 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' with your two 'favourite Governments' Your comments concerning Iran's bad behaviour seem to ignore what happened beforehand because of US intervention that caused the 'blowback'. It helps your credibility if you present the complete picture, not just what you want to use to make your argument work. Do you have any idea how many terrorist organizations have been sponsored by the US and Israel? Now where has that wall gone so that I can bang my head on it some more.

I see you did not bother to read my post; the part about previous warlike actions coming from BOTH sides. Yes, I'm biased and openly so. You're biased (or much, much worse with that Rotschild bank conspiracy filth) and acting like you're not. Which is more honest? Edited January 5, 2012 by Jingthing

[bangkaew]

Limitation of nuclear proliferation is an INTERNATIONAL goal. That includes currently nuclear countries gradually stepping down the numbers such as the USA-Russia treaty, and international efforts to deter new countries from getting them. Each national case is different. The wider acceptance of India's program is an example. Maybe that is the way it will go with Iran eventually as their program becomes inevitable but right now the effort to stop them is very defensible.

hypothetically. would you agree to Iran having no nuclear material AND Israel doing the same?

[teatree]

Oh my God, it's the same propaganda that we had with the build up to the invasion of Iraq.

'They hate our freedom' 'they're going to attack us' 'we have to strike them before they strike us' 'we're the good guys they're the bad guys'...blah blah blah.

That's not to say the Iran are the good guys, but they are not the ones going around the globe invading countries like the Anglo-American establishment.

When will people learn to think for themselves and stop the mainstream media from doing their reasoning for them?

[Jingthing]

Limitation of nuclear proliferation is an INTERNATIONAL goal. That includes currently nuclear countries gradually stepping down the numbers such as the USA-Russia treaty, and international efforts to deter new countries from getting them. Each national case is different. The wider acceptance of India's program is an example. Maybe that is the way it will go with Iran eventually as their program becomes inevitable but right now the effort to stop them is very defensible.

hypothetically. would you agree to Iran having no nuclear material AND Israel doing the same?

Absolutely not. Unless all other existing nuclear states do the same under treaty.

Given the current realpolitik in the Middle East with Saudi and Egypt being quite OK with the status quo of Israeli balancing power of Iran, right now Israel disarming would have the same result as Iran arming, Saudi, Egypt and others would feel the need to arm.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Oh my God, it's the same propaganda that we had with the build up to the invasion of Iraq.

'They hate our freedom' 'they're going to attack us' 'we have to strike them before they strike us' 'we're the good guys they're the bad guys'...blah blah blah.

That's not to say the Iran are the good guys, but they are not the ones going around the globe invading countries like the Anglo-American establishment.

When will people learn to think for themselves and stop the mainstream media from doing their reasoning for them?

No it is not the same because they are totally different countries and historical situations. It is very simple minded to assert Iraq and Iran are the same. Edited January 5, 2012 by Jingthing

[bangkaew]

Limitation of nuclear proliferation is an INTERNATIONAL goal. That includes currently nuclear countries gradually stepping down the numbers such as the USA-Russia treaty, and international efforts to deter new countries from getting them. Each national case is different. The wider acceptance of India's program is an example. Maybe that is the way it will go with Iran eventually as their program becomes inevitable but right now the effort to stop them is very defensible.

hypothetically. would you agree to Iran having no nuclear material AND Israel doing the same?

Absolutely not. Unless all other existing nuclear states do the same under treaty.

would you agree to iran having nukes if it was a democracy and a full member of the international community?

[koheesti]

How can someone be anti-nuke yet think Iran has the right to get nukes? It makes no sense.

Actually it makes perfect sense...........Unless all are giving them up

But in your limited view only the *good* guys have them right?

So that is ok then?

No I think I will stick with my opinion & mind you that is all it is.

It is no different than gun laws.........They strangle the folks who legally acquire or have the RIGHT to acquire.

Yet the bad guys still freely acquire them.

So we are back to the same here..........Your premise is only good guys HAVE nukes? Only good guys CAN HAVE nukes?

No Thanks......These days I am hard pressed to tell the good from the bad

In FACT if I leave off reading the program aka: media blitz & use my eyes & brain to judge by their actions....

I would bet those you claim are good & should be allowed in my opinion & judged by their ACTIONS ware would be deemed quite BAD

I don't have a difficult time telling the "bad" from the "good". Nope, not at all. There are even some countries which some might put in the "bad" category but they have a long, proven track record of being responsible with their nukes and that's good enough to earn them a pass.

[Jingthing]

would you agree to iran having nukes if it was a democracy and a full member of the international community?

I don't want ANY new country to have nukes. This is becoming annoying. I have posted as much numerous times. Once any country has them, it is too late.

[koheesti]

That's not to say the Iran are the good guys, but they are not the ones going around the globe invading countries like the Anglo-American establishment.

That's only because they can't. Hate on the "Anglo-American establishment" all you want but they are the only thing keeping large parts of the world from descending into bloody war - with SERIOUS body counts, not the penny ante stuff we have today. Without the AAE to keep things in check, Iran would go nuts and take control of the Persian Gulf. China would be more aggressive and for sure take the South China Sea area. Russia would take back the Baltics, Crimea and some other former republics, North Korea would attack South Korea, pirates would be in a lot more places than the Gulf of Aden, the list goes on. That's what I like about Ron Paul's foreign policy - pull our military back home, mind our own business - and let everyone else fight it out. Then, when the dust settles, it'll be like 1948 all over again, the US will be 75% of the world's economy and we can start selling everyone chewing gum and Coca-Cola again.

Edited January 5, 2012 by koheesti

[bangkaew]

would you agree to iran having nukes if it was a democracy and a full member of the international community?

I don't want ANY new country to have nukes. This is becoming annoying. I have posted as much numerous times. Once any country has them, it is too late.

but why should old countries have them and not new? Provided they are equally responsible?

[koheesti]

would you agree to iran having nukes if it was a democracy and a full member of the international community?

I don't want ANY new country to have nukes. This is becoming annoying. I have posted as much numerous times. Once any country has them, it is too late.

but why should old countries have them and not new? Provided they are equally responsible?

Because if NO country had them, there would be a mad race to be the only country with one, making them the top dog on the planet. We NEED to have a few countries with them like we have today to keep that from happening. And you can't keep adding countries to the list because it increases the chances of something going wrong. A change of leadership for example that isn't so responsible.

Edited January 5, 2012 by koheesti

[Jingthing]

would you agree to iran having nukes if it was a democracy and a full member of the international community?

I don't want ANY new country to have nukes. This is becoming annoying. I have posted as much numerous times. Once any country has them, it is too late.

but why should old countries have them and not new? Provided they are equally responsible?

Maybe wait until Iran has a reasonably responsible government and open up the discussion at that time. Already made the anti proliferation argument but you aren't interested, so let's stop this.

[Steely Dan]

Beating a dead horse. Deal with reality as it is now. No country with nukes has ever given them all up, have they?

Iraq did when the US knew they definitely had nukes and came in and bombed the shit out of them didn't they? oh wait

but imposing sanctions and going to war on hunches seems to be just alrighty

amurrrrica... fuc_k yeah!

Iran have been threatening the annihilation of Israel for ages, they are up to their necks in supporting terrorists and have moved their supposedly peaceful nuclear program deep underground and pancaked their economy in their refusal to comply with the non proliferation treaty. To view their behaviour as innocent is simply willful denial of facts. I suspect that many posters here would not accept anything short of a mushroom cloud as evidence of Iran's malign intent.

[GentlemanJim]

would you agree to iran having nukes if it was a democracy and a full member of the international community?

I don't want ANY new country to have nukes. This is becoming annoying. I have posted as much numerous times. Once any country has them, it is too late.

but why should old countries have them and not new? Provided they are equally responsible?

Maybe wait until Iran has a reasonably responsible government and open up the discussion at that time. Already made the anti proliferation argument but you aren't interested, so let's stop this.

Iran had a very responsible, democratically elected (the first in the Middle East) Government. The US took it out and put the 'Shah' back on the throne. It was the Shah that established the secret police, the torture and abuse of Iran's civilians. The rest is history and 'blowback' from the US intervention to take out a democratic Government that bothered nobody. The FACT in all of this is as has already been stated, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses". Why can countries not pursue energy policies that will remove the inefficient and in a few decades soon to be defunct fossil fuel technologies? It is all about control! Do you know that the US has intervened and stopped African nations building coal powered electricity stations because of global warming. They are not allowed nuclear, so in fact have nothing. When asked how do villages ever get electricity and the nation develop the US said put solar panels on the roofs of the mud huts. One solar panel costing about 10 years salary of the average African villager. Its all about control.

Jingthing, can you explain what is your gripe about the Rothschilds and their financial interests in all but 5 (now 4) of the worlds central banks. Why is that 'filth'?

[GentlemanJim]

Beating a dead horse. Deal with reality as it is now. No country with nukes has ever given them all up, have they?

Iraq did when the US knew they definitely had nukes and came in and bombed the shit out of them didn't they? oh wait but imposing sanctions and going to war on hunches seems to be just alrighty amurrrrica... fuc_k yeah!

Iran have been threatening the annihilation of Israel for ages, they are up to their necks in supporting terrorists and have moved their supposedly peaceful nuclear program deep underground and pancaked their economy in their refusal to comply with the non proliferation treaty. To view their behaviour as innocent is simply willful denial of facts. I suspect that many posters here would not accept anything short of a mushroom cloud as evidence of Iran's malign intent.

Iran has never threatened the annihalation of Israel, that is propaganda media claptrap. The US is up to it's neck supporting terrorist organizations and Israel is not following any Nuclear treaty because it is amongst company like North Korea who wont sign any treaty. Contraire, I believe many posters on here would like to see a 'pre emptive mushroom cloud' over Tehran and they would find some way of justifying it under the 'just in case' catagory.

Edited January 5, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[Jingthing]

Jingthing, can you explain what is your gripe about the Rothschilds and their financial interests in all but 5 (now 4) of the worlds central banks. Why is that 'filth'?

No, because I don't think this is the proper place for you to work out your anti-semitism issues. Edited January 5, 2012 by Jingthing

[bangkaew]

That's not to say the Iran are the good guys, but they are not the ones going around the globe invading countries like the Anglo-American establishment.

That's only because they can't. Hate on the "Anglo-American establishment" all you want but they are the only thing keeping large parts of the world from descending into bloody war - with SERIOUS body counts, not the penny ante stuff we have today. Without the AAE to keep things in check, Iran would go nuts and take control of the Persian Gulf. China would be more aggressive and for sure take the South China Sea area. Russia would take back the Baltics, Crimea and some other former republics, North Korea would attack South Korea, pirates would be in a lot more places than the Gulf of Aden, the list goes on. That's what I like about Ron Paul's foreign policy - pull our military back home, mind our own business - and let everyone else fight it out. Then, when the dust settles, it'll be like 1948 all over again, the US will be 75% of the world's economy and we can start selling everyone chewing gum and Coca-Cola again.

maybe you are right, I don't know. The only difference i can see is that before the AAE arrive in a country, there usually is a dictator in charge who keeps peace. Sometimes, like Qaddafi, they have great education and give $50k to every newly wed. But still not a democracy. After the AAE arrive, there is a modecum of democracy, terrorism and a civil War. Not sure what is the answer or best for the people.