Target Iran?

[schmosef]

According to Amnesty International, the USA executed more child offenders than any other country (19 between 1990 and 2003). Against 10 in Iran. Perhaps the USA shouldn't have nuclear power or weapons if you are going to equate moral issues with the right to generate electricity or fry other countries. As I said, this equation is a totally ridiculous non sequitur, so quit trying to step on moral high ground.

Interesting twisting of my point but I've been saying all along that you cannot equate us on moral grounds (All that talk of moral relativism being bad came from me!).

The point is simple. We wouldn't use nukes aggressively. They would. So they shouldn't have them.

Your contention that underneath it all they're actually quite reasonable chaps and their bluff and blunder is all for show is utter BS.

[schmosef]

more "give them a nuke" news...

Iran’s Ahmadinejad: Islam will lead to "great event"

Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 12 – Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday evening that the Islamic Republic’s 1979 Islamic revolution was a great movement and a stepping stone to a final “great event” in the world.

Speaking to a crowd in the southern city of Roudan, Hormozgan province, Ahmadinejad said, “The Islamic Republic is the continuation of the path of the prophets which came to begin a great movement and the final occurrence”.

“The Islamic revolution was a great leap in leading the people and reaching the climax of history”, Ahmadinejad said.

I can't wait.

[KvHagedorn]

According to Amnesty International, the USA executed more child offenders than any other country (19 between 1990 and 2003). Against 10 in Iran. Perhaps the USA shouldn't have nuclear power or weapons if you are going to equate moral issues with the right to generate electricity or fry other countries. As I said, this equation is a totally ridiculous non sequitur, so quit trying to step on moral high ground.

What? There are more gangsta wanna-bes who murder people in the United States (population 300 million) than there are helpless young women trying to defend themselves from rape and accidentally killing their attackers in Iran (population 70 million)? Amazing.

And please don't use the world "child" when referring to hardened 17 year olds. It's insulting to everyone's intelligence, and makes you yourself look like a fool. One of these cases happened about 20 miles from me, and a friend was even called to serve on that jury (but got out of it.) The guy broke into a 50yo teacher's house, raped and murdered her, took her car and bought stuff with her credit cards, bragged about what he had done to his friends (now what kind of person thinks rape and murder is something that's socially acceptible enough to brag about?) This lowlife was TWO WEEKS shy of his 18th birthday when he committed these heinous crimes, and because of people like YOU defining him in the same way one would define an innocent little 7yo girl, that is, with the term "child," his sentence has been commuted by the supreme court. Makes me want to throw up.

[KRSESQ]

A hypothetical question: Suppose for the sake of argument that controlled fusion power generation became a fact tomorrow, and that the process is safe, cheap, economical, clean, efficient, easy to build, and produces no fissionable products.

The West offers this technology free to the current regime in Iran to meet all their electrical needs for the indefinite future. In exchange, Iran must give up and completely dismantle its nuclear program.

After all, what would be the purpose of a nuclear program under these circumstances, except to produce a bomb?

Who here REALLY BELIEVES that Iran would accept?


Kevin

[schmosef]

A hypothetical question: Suppose for the sake of argument that controlled fusion power generation became a fact tomorrow, and that the process is safe, cheap, economical, clean, efficient, easy to build, and produces no fissionable products.

The West offers this technology free to the current regime in Iran to meet all their electrical needs for the indefinite future. In exchange, Iran must give up and completely dismantle its nuclear program.

After all, what would be the purpose of a nuclear program under these circumstances, except to produce a bomb?

Who here REALLY BELIEVES that Iran would accept?


Kevin

Well they're so reasonable that I can't imagine them not accepting.

[TransformX]

A hypothetical question: Suppose for the sake of argument that controlled fusion power generation became a fact tomorrow, and that the process is safe, cheap, economical, clean, efficient, easy to build, and produces no fissionable products.

The West offers this technology free to the current regime in Iran to meet all their electrical needs for the indefinite future. In exchange, Iran must give up and completely dismantle its nuclear program.

After all, what would be the purpose of a nuclear program under these circumstances, except to produce a bomb?

Who here REALLY BELIEVES that Iran would accept?


Kevin

If there's no vible way to turn it into some killing maching, being exlosive, poullutant or anything that could wipe out population, they'll find an excuse to reject the offer.
Poof of concept, they rejected the Russian offer to enrich Uranium on Russian soil.

[Dr Mordrid]

And before you say it's a bad analogy... it's not. You're being intentionally thick about this, and disingenuous in your arguments. Period.

Seems to be a trait of UN-centric types IMO.

TransformX: you nailed it.

Dr. Mordrid

[schmosef]

So I was just having a little chat with Sasq via IM...

He's too busy to weigh in here but he had a point that bares repeating.

He said that Iran's push to get nukes might not just be because they want to attack Israel, which is obviously a value-add at a minimum.

He suggests that Iran wants to get nukes because they have compared the US approach to Iraq (invasion/regime change) with the US approach to NK (negotiation/appeasement) and much prefer the latter approach.

So he's suggesting that there is a possibility that they are trying to get nukes for purely defensive purposes.

I don't buy it. But that's what he had to say so I'm posting it here for discussion.

[schmosef]

According to Amnesty International, the USA executed more child offenders than any other country (19 between 1990 and 2003). Against 10 in Iran. Perhaps the USA shouldn't have nuclear power or weapons if you are going to equate moral issues with the right to generate electricity or fry other countries. As I said, this equation is a totally ridiculous non sequitur, so quit trying to step on moral high ground.

One other point on this issue...

I's not so much THAT they hang girls, it's WHY they hang girls.

I's that inability to see past religious doctrine to the human side of a problem that is why they should never have the means to export their brand of justice.

[KvHagedorn]

He's too busy to weigh in here but he had a point that bares repeating.

He said that Iran's push to get nukes might not just be because they want to attack Israel, which is obviously a value-add at a minimum.

He suggests that Iran wants to get nukes because they have compared the US approach to Iraq (invasion/regime change) with the US approach to NK (negotiation/appeasement) and much prefer the latter approach.

So he's suggesting that there is a possibility that they are trying to get nukes for purely defensive purposes.

I don't buy it. But that's what he had to say so I'm posting it here for discussion.

Um, no. This guy does not think like that. He's a megalomaniac and wants anything that gives him more power. The US was never going to attack NK.. there was no real point, and no need. If they had misbehaved, China would have stepped on them hard. No sensible person wants to attack Iran.. it's all mountains, and would be a pain in the ass. Unless they get seriously crazy (which is possible) no one will.

[schmosef]

All Sasq was trying to say was that there could be multi levels to Iran's strategy and, all things being equal (and I agree that they are not but who knows who the Mullahs are perceiving the situation), the only sure fire way to take invasion off the table would be to have nukes.

This thread isn't about NK so I don't want to get into too many details but China isn't exactly the most rational player either. Their foreign policy has never really been tested and they don't have to take their own population's opinion into account. Whatever they'd do if NK really started stepping out of line (and there could be a strong argument to say that they already have), I doubt it would be altruistic.

[KvHagedorn]

My assumption is based upon my feelings about what China is trying to do right now. They are desperately trying to industrialize fully and develop their economy. If some dildohead like Kim starts a war next door and upsets the Asian and World economy, I think he would get stepped on HARD.. they don't want a disruption in their progress of sucking the wealth out of the US and the West right now.

[Brian Ellis]

And please don't use the world "child" when referring to hardened 17 year olds. It's insulting to everyone's intelligence, and makes you yourself look like a fool.

Not my terminology. Cut'n'pasted from http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng
as was stated in my post. You may care to read this page, BTW, to try to put a little balance into your ultra-conservatism.

Anyway, as I say, nuclear power is NOT nuclear weaponry. The IAEA inspectors have not found a jot of proof that Iran is seeking to produce weapons. The only trace found of HEU was proved to have been accidentally imported as contamination on some second-hand Pakistani equipment, which Pakistan has replaced by more efficient means as it was not really suitable for heavy enrichment. All the evidence we have to date that Iran is after making nuclear weaponry is as solid as the WMD fiasco in Iraq. Even GWB and Co. are taking the "diplomatic" approach in this matter with only a few veiled threats to appease his right-wingers. Not to mention, of course, that the West has handled the affair extremely badly by assuming guilt before proof.

And the rhetoric of the new President is just words.

Now let's get this straight. I don't like the situation any more than you guys. I don't like the morals of ANY country that permits capital punishment or torture or imprisonment without trial, but that is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand and anyone who tries to mix them is, at the best, pea-brained. I don't like the mores of any country that threatens other countries or, even worse, puts their threats into action. I don't like the mores of my native country for this and other reasons and this is partially why I have not lived in it since 1963 or paid any taxes there since then. It bothers me not a jot when ultra-conservatives call me ultra-liberal (which I'm not, by the way) because I happen to have evolved over many decades a moral code that does not coincide with theirs.

There is one post in this thread that makes sense to my "thick about this, and disingenuous" thinking. Dr M suggested that all nuclear fuel be enriched, processed and recycled by an international body. Other than yours truly, no one has supported this notion - why? Let's get down to the nitty gritty. What is Iran's objection to the current situation? Only that they have no assurance that they can obtain nuclear fuel and that they are dependent on third parties for their provisions. Both the EU and Russia have tried to defuse this problem by offering various forms of treaty of approvisionment, which Iran has refused because they know words are meaningless and that either could cut off their supplies at the drop of a hat. An international body, supplying fuel to all world users, comprising all nations wishing to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, with Iran as equal member, could very well be the answer, if the charter of this body were well drawn up (including controls and balance sheets). IMHO, it would be well worth the try and it may reduce the sabre-rattling by various parties, if not the rhetoric from the same parties.

[KvHagedorn]

I think Doc's idea was refreshingly good, as a matter of fact.

No offense intended, but I also think that isolating yourself as you have might have parted you a bit too much from the real world, Brian. Being retired and living on an island with a more or less static culture makes it very easy to propound according to ideals rather than empirical experience (other than that of years past). By the way, if I seem ultra-conservative to you and others it might just be for the very purpose of balance. When everyone seems to agree too readily upon something they don't really understand, it bothers me. For instance, if anyone here had their opinions on the death penalty formed by the film Dancer in the Dark, that's truly pathetic. The Incredibles was a much more realistic movie.

[Gurm]

The Incredibles was a much more realistic movie.

Hear hear! The Incredibles was the most realistic use of CGI I've ever seen!