May I point out that the same reasoning was used as a justification for the Iraq invasion? That didn´t pan out to well, did it?
Once more, this time with feeling!
And to continue your analogy, by shooting her, you are doing way more harm to yourself with much greater certainty than she was ever likely to manage. That’s not the sort of behavior that society looks kindly upon.
If we attack Iran, the likely repercussions are almost certain to do us more harm than Iran left alone or engaged peacefully ever would. Just as invading Iraq has done us more damage than Saddam could have ever achieved even he’d tried. Over and over, America seems to insist on hurting itself.
So then, you can’t provide any rational reason for Iran to hide details of its nuclear program? Not even going to touch on the reason for any actions, just going to bring up Iraq?
Will you even attempt to answer the perfectly valid questions I posed, or is the fact that Bush made a superficially similar case in a superficially similar situation enough to discount any objective analysis of these, totally seperate facts?
I know folks are strongly opposed to Bush, but is rationality too much to ask?
Y’know, I think you generally have the better position in this thread, but Iran has a quite rational motive for secretly developing nuclear capability.
Iran had the most powerful nation in the world impose a ruthless dictator on them for 26 years, then had that same powerful nation provide covert (and sometimes not so covert) support to the war-mongering neighbor that attacked them once they overthrew that dicator. Acquiring a nuclear capability would appear to be a prudent defensive action. The U.S. has allowed Israel to do so without comment–and Israel has certainly hidden its nuclear program. Given that the U.S. exerts a great deal of (frequently unsuccessful) effort to prevent other nations (other than Israel) from acquiring nuclear weapons, any nation attempting to acquire a nuclear capability would demonstrate only stupidity to acknowledge their efforts.
Well, thanks for that, and for engaging with an honest desire to debate the issue.
Except they claim that isn’t what they’re doing. Hiding details of their program isn’t an action consistent with a program that is 100% legitimate either.
You are correct that a rational reason for them hiding details would certainly be that those details are of a military nature. I was more trying to figure out some reasons why they’d hide details of a non-military program. Which, unless I miss my guess, is what many of the folks in this thread are arguing, that Iran’s nuclear program is definitely non-military in nature (and you’re a dirty stinking neocon if you disagree 
)
And simply for the record, I think a much more prudent course of action would be detente, allowing free elections, stopping their relation with global terror and being 100% transparent if they still want a non-weaponized nuclear program.
I know that some people who caricatured views of the US, especially in this thread, but I can’t see any US administration doing anything less than positively getting orgasmic if Iran became western-friendly, democratic, and a model of what a totalitarian state in the ME could become. Hell, I’m sure even Atilla the Bush would be perfectly happy if, without a shot being fired, Iran could be trotted out as an example of peace and freedom[sup]tm[/sup] spreading across the ME.
Personally, I’d wager that if Iran was our close ally, we’d trust them with nukes, too. We didn’t go after France when they went nuclear, after all. And they’re, ya know, the French. 
I’d say “other than our allies”, but that’s not quite the main point of discussion here, right?
I don’t quite believe you’re correct tom. The Shah’s nuclear program was highly advanced, and we didn’t overthrow him. There was also some pretty compelling evidence that it had weaponized potential, if not inherent designs.
This is kind of a divergent tangent from this thread, I think, but I’d wager that the US would, in general, have much less distaste for allies developing nuclear capability than enemies. IIRC, the UK developed its nuclear weapons program via collaboration with the US.
However, if your ultimate point from this post is that a rational reason for Iran to hide its nuclear program is that it has something to hide, then I’d say that would certainly qualify as a rational reason. But again, that was more in the context of those claiming that Iran hiding details of its nuclear program didn’t raise serious questions about the scope, nature, and intentions of their nuclear program.
I think we agree… kinda.
(First sign of the apocalypse?)
We didn’t impose the Shah on Iran, Tom…if that’s what you are implying by ‘most powerful nation’. We SUPPORTED the Shah after WWII…but the Pahlavi dynasty was already in power before that. They came too power sometime in the post WWI era (in the 20’s IIRC)…and if anything it was the Europeans who got them started.
Finn already addressed the rest, but it bears repeating that an Iranian nuclear program geared toward peaceful power generation has nothing too hide…the Iranians have a perfect right through the NPT too develop peaceful nuclear power. The only ‘rational’ reason for them too hide something that there is no reason too hide is…if they actually HAVE something too hide. Like the development of a nuclear weapons capability.
I agree with you that Iran may make a calculation that acquiring nuclear weapons capability would be a ‘prudent defensive action’ for them. In fact, I’m reasonably sure that is exactly what they are doing. That isn’t what most of the folks in this thread are admitting too however. Additionally, because Iran makes a calculation that tossing out the NPT and getting nuclear being in line with their own best interests (as they see them) doesn’t mean that the US doesn’t or shouldn’t see things from a different perspective. I think that a good case can be made that it ISN’T in the US’s best interests too have Iran toss out their treaty and gain nuclear weapons. Based on the effort Europe is making THEY don’t think it’s in their best interests either.
I’m not advocating that the US should pound Iran into dust (even if we could)…I think the current efforts of diplomacy between the US and Europe (playing good cop/bad cop) are worthwhile, and I’m encouraged that they seem too be having some effect on Iran. I simply think that the situation bears watching…careful watching. This blithe complacency I’m seeing in this thread by several posters who are essentially saying let Iran do whatever they want, that Iran is no threat so the US shouldn’t bother being watchful, that there is no nuclear program (based simply on their dislike of Bush et al, a contrary attitude that if the US says so it must be wrong, and on the Iraq war seemingly), etc etc…well, I think that this attitude is a bit scary. YMMV.
-XT
If anyone is interested in some of the history of Iran, the Shah and Mosaddeq and the Nationalists, there is a fairly good article here on Wiki:
The part that Tom was probably referring too is here:
Further, here is a brief article on Mosaddeq:
As with a lot of things that happened during the Cold War, the issues were…complex. Too say we ‘imposed’ the Shah on Iran is, however, erroneous. As is an attempt too make the US (and the Brits, though they aren’t often mentioned, even though in this period they were as involved as the US…if not more so…in this region) the ‘bad guy’ in Iran is simplistic at best. There WERE no good guys or bad guys…only shades of gray.
Later on, as the Shah became increasingly erratic, a good case can be made that the US support might have been a bit misguided (though again, the region was considered strategically vital, and we DID have a long history with the Pahlavi dynasty…before they went off the deep end)…but during this period it was a touch call too distinguish the good guys from the bad ones.
Anyway, I was curious about when they got started and thought some folks might like a diversion into some of the history of how things got the way they are today.
-XT
Let’s run that again in slow motion.
Emphasis added.
Er, I don’t see how that is an erroneous interpretation. Sure, there’s more detail – there always is. But that the US staged and funded a coup against a democratically elected Iranian leader who was nationalizing the oil industry doesn’t seem to be in dispute.
This is not true. You were referred to Der Trihs’s response to your question: which I will edit in
…
I can only agree.
As is often the case, the contrary is true. It is the increased probability of Iran stabilizing as the local power that has the USA worried. Inhibited impulses cause rage in infants and the mute beasts. No easy bang-bang, bwah-ha, baby cross!
OTOH you may mean, Iranian nuclear research increases global instability because the USA is currently governed by fucking fruitcakes, plus some Likudniks pulling a few strings in the background. Then bang on the money, you would be.
Well, first you have to prove they are hiding anything; second, let´s assume they are hiding something; I can think of one reason and it´s that they may not enjoy being probed up their wazoos by people they don´t really like very much.
And thirdly, frankly I would expect them to at least have preliminary research on atomic weapons, they surely wouldn´t like that to hang out on the breeze.
Do I like that?, no, not at all. The dovey side on me wishes there wouldn`t be any nukes in the world. But the fact is that Iran is on the US sights, Axis of Evil and all that. They have the right to defend themselves as they see fit, and nukes provide a very strong deterrent. And why should they refrain from doing that based on a signed treaty when its enemy uses treaties as toilet paper anyway?
Scared people make stupid decisions, so with some luck if they develop nukes Iran would feel safer and cooler heads would start permeating into the goverment.
You first read the thread.
You might just find what you’re looking for.
So they announce that they’re intending to be fully transparent. They’re attempting to convince the global community that they have nothing to hide. But because they don’t like being “probed” they bulldoze a military facility here, refuse to offer evidence there? In international politics with the stakes being what they are, they’re hiding things because they don’t like being “probed” up the “wazoo” by “people they really don’t like”?
Which, again if you read this thread, the majority of posters have been arguing that thinking such a thing makes you a neocon who is helping Bush launch a new war. I bet you didn’t even know you were a warmongering neocon, did you?
As already pointed out, numerous times, Iran’s nuclear program goes back far, far before Bush, or his “Axis of Evil” speech. Their black market relationship does. Their secret nuclear facilities buried deep underground do. A large part of what they’re hiding is what the program’s history consists of.
Believing that it is a defensive reaction to Bush’s rhetoric takes a whole bunch of faith.
There’s also the fact, again as has been pointed out numerous times, that the US has made no moves to invade, has no capability to invade, and most likely isn’t going to invade. Even the “Well, we’re just going to toss a bunch of missiles” crowd can’t explain why we haven’t already done it. The Iranian theocrats may be corrupt, evil, fanatical scumfucks, but they’re not that out of touch. Anybody who watches the news knows that the US military is stretched to the breaking point, we certainly can’t invade anybody else. Moreover if the US was actually rapacious, greedy, evil, blah blah blah, a nuclear program that most experts conclude couldn’t produce a weapon for some time wouldn’t serve as a deterrent anyways.
A nation’s treaty obligations have nothing to do with what other nations are doing with separate treaties. Ruining your international credibility with the excuse “he did it first!” is seldom a wise move. In any case, that sort of logic pretty much means that as soon as one country breaches treaty obligations, any other nation can be free to do the same, as long as somewhere alone the chain, some country can count as their enemy. Not, IMO, a strong basis for international policy.
And, again, as pointed out many times in this thread, it’s not just the US that has problems with Iran’s nuclear program. It’s Europe, Russia, China… Do you really think it’s a good idea for Iran to invite yet another round of sanctions because the US may or may not have violated some treaties in the past?
Except, again, their nuclear program was going on for more than a decade before Bush. It was connected to the black market. It was buried underground. It wasn’t reported. Even now, they’re keeping many of its details from the IAEA. It takes a great leap of faith to assume that any military intentions developed recently and then only out of fear in response to Bush’s rhetoric.
I didn´t know that!, I should take some time to look inside me and see what else I´ve been missing. :rolleyes:
I´m out of here.
I can’t tell - are you claiming that nations bear no responsibility for the actions of groups they sponsor, or not?
Because if the US and British are responsible for the coup d’etat because they supported and funded it, but Iran is not responsible for Hizbollah even though they founded, support, and fund it, then you are not making a great deal of sense.
Let’s see - the coup was fifty-some years ago, and is directly relevant. The Iranian-sponsored terror attacks were twenty-some years ago, and are ancient history.
What exactly is the expiration date on that package?
Regards,
Shodan
Define “sponsor.”
The US and Britain didn’t just “sponsor” a coup. They planned it in great detail. From the Wiki article on Operation Ajax:
You can see how staging a coup in another country for the benefit of some oil companies might tend to stick in the craw of the citizens of the affected country, even after 50 years. (Particularly since we continued to support the brutal dictator who was the beneficiary of that coup for the following 26 years.)
Twenty-year-old terror attacks on our outposts in the Middle East (or at least eleven years old, to be extra generous) just don’t quite measure up by comparison. (And that’s leaving aside the question of whether Hezbollah carried out the attacks, and the question of whether the terrorists acted independently of any Iranian guidance.)
If you go into the beehive to get the honey, you’re going to get some stings.
Well, you know, you have too read all of that detail first. If you read the OTHER quote I cited all that complexity stuff comes out:
I added the bolded parts.
You see, it was a complex situation. However, it is erroneous too say we IMPOSED the Shah on Iran. The Shah was ALREADY the ruling monarch. Depending on how you look at it, we RESTORED the Shah (who was the constitutional monarch of Iran prior to our involvement). I suppose if you wanted to, you could say we RE-imposed the Shah. Or you could say that Mossadegh over stepped his own authority (even though he was democratically elected and all) when he staged the first coup, disbanded the parliment, suspended the constitution and tossed out the Shah.
-XT
As long as I’m still pointing out whoppers, there’s the claim that, for instance, the marine barracks and Khobar Towers attacks are only “alleged” to have been carried out with Iran’s knowledge, support, and cooperation. I’ve already linked to two trials whose results show that there’s nothing “alleged” about it. But I guess the rule is now that if Bush says something, you are innocent until proven guilty, and then you’re still innocent.
Another whopper, of course, is that the targets were “outposts”. I’m not going to split hairs and talk about whether or not, for instance, the US marine barracks in Lebanon, part of a UN peacekeeping mission, was a US ‘outpost’. I’d hope that most Americans would object to our peacekeepers being murdered in any case, but I realize that this is not the case. Many attacks, however, were carried out against targets that cannot by any stretch of imagination, distortion or obfuscation be termed “outposts”.
Just as a small smattering, the US embassy in Lebanon as well as TWA 847 and a series of kidnappings.
From the arch-Zionist-neocons PBS (an interview with Robert Oakley):
From a separate PBS piece:
So ? So does our hostility towards Iran
I already have, several times. Bush and friends didn’t expect to get stuck in Iraq, which threw off their timetable. And given the present political situation, the time to instigate a war with Iran is either after they’ve been goaded into doing something we can pretend is a casus belli ( I recall warhawks cursing Britain when they got those sailors away from Iran without a war ); or, wait until just before Bush is due to leave office. Since even our spineless Congress might impeach him or defund the war if he did it earlier; doing it late means he starts the war and leaves the disaster in his successor’s hands.
Which is a reason to continue it to completion now, while we’ve crippled ourself.
Yes. Getting nukes is a matter of national survival. And personal survival for a great many Iranians, including the leadership.
Isn’t it funny how some folks can argue that it’s ridiculous to think the US will go to war with Iran while giving lots of reasons why we should go to war with Iran?
Really? Has anybody in this thread, at all, given any reasons why we should go to war? Could you quote someone saying that anything Iran has done is a casus belli?
Or would you prefer to retract your statement?