article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4141072.stm)

this has always bothered me. It seems a tad two faced that countries with nuclear capability keep telling those without that they aren't allowed to have any.

would make a US invasion slightly more difficult if they faced nuclear weapons at the end of 2007...

US don't hang about in such matters, if there is no reason to attack some country, they create one.

Iran are probably gonna get attacked by the US some time or another what ever they do.

Nuclear power or not.

So what happens when the states break international law anyways?

Nothing!

With their skull and bones, and their new 'Empire' they do what they want.

because they would probably use them!

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a treaty, opened for signature on July 1, 1968, restricting the possession of nuclear weapons. The vast majority of sovereign states (189) are parties to the treaty.

In New York City, on May 11, 1995, more than 170 countries decided to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions.

IRAN was one of them!

Iran says it has the legal right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to carry out the nuclear fuel cycle. But thy have no nuclear power stations and have the second largest oil reserves in the world. There is no need for nuclear fuel in Iran.

Also Iran was carrying out small-scale experiments to create plutonium, one of the pathways to building nuclear weapons, for five years beyond the date when it previously insisted it had ended all such work.

Since 2003, when Iran first began admitting that it had hidden 17 years of work from the nuclear agency, it made assurances that its accounting of its activities was full. But it has repeatedly had to revise that accounting, often in the face of evidence from the agency's scientific analyses.

Need I say any more?

Its called one law for us and one for the rest, hipocritical of course,and has been said its only a matter of time till the US go after Iran.
You will see all the ususal UN resolutions and the US doing its own thing,which as you know is bombing the sh*t out of anyone they dont like. Mind you its all in the name of democracy.;)

Originally posted by royjames
Its called one law for us and one for the rest, hipocritical of course,and has been said its only a matter of time till the US go after Iran.
You will see all the ususal UN resolutions and the US doing its own thing,which as you know is bombing the sh*t out of anyone they dont like. Mind you its all in the name of democracy.;)

what he said.

Originally posted by royjames
Its called one law for us and one for the rest, hipocritical of course,and has been said its only a matter of time till the US go after Iran.
You will see all the ususal UN resolutions and the US doing its own thing,which as you know is bombing the sh*t out of anyone they dont like. Mind you its all in the name of democracy.;)

This is a gloriuos moment. The 1st tiem ive ever agreed with RoyJames

Originally posted by royjames
Its called one law for us and one for the rest, hipocritical of course,and has been said its only a matter of time till the US go after Iran.
You will see all the ususal UN resolutions and the US doing its own thing,which as you know is bombing the sh*t out of anyone they dont like. Mind you its all in the name of democracy.;)

Did you even read what the NPT treaty means? They agreed not to create nuclear weapons, and there is no need for nuclear fuel in Iran. Going by the fact they have lied (and admitted it) to the world over their nuclear aspirations I think it is very worrying that they are dabbling in this area once again. Especially after the swearing in of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who’s interpretation of the Koran is similar (in some areas) to the Taliban’s!

Originally posted by serapis
Did you even read what the NPT treaty means? They agreed not to create nuclear weapons, and there is no need for nuclear fuel in Iran. Going by the fact they have lied (and admitted it) to the world over their nuclear aspirations I think it is very worrying that they are dabbling in this area once again. Especially after the swearing in of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who’s interpretation of the Koran is similar (in some areas) to the Taliban’s!

imo So what. Times change, things change, and if USA can have these weapons then so can anyone. USA doesnt rule the world (although im sure they like to think they do)

Originally posted by serapis
Did you even read what the NPT treaty means? They agreed not to create nuclear weapons, and there is no need for nuclear fuel in Iran. Going by the fact they have lied (and admitted it) to the world over their nuclear aspirations I think it is very worrying that they are dabbling in this area once again. Especially after the swearing in of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who’s interpretation of the Koran is similar (in some areas) to the Taliban’s!

They just want to get something together before Israel bombs it like Osirak.

Of course, you don't see Israel stepping up to the plate and even admitting it has a nuclear weapon, let alone opening up the Dimona facility to the IAEA (instead of just the top floor to pre-vetted advance notice US inspection teams.).

Israel has the bomb. The UK provided them with key ingredients for plutonium processing in the 50s. The fact that other countries still buy this policy of 'ambiguity' by the israeli government is totally dumbfounding.

Talk about an elephant in the room...

They may be signatories to the NPT (Israel has never signed it, despite being a nuclear power), but part of that is the agreement that nuclear countries will help non nuclear countries to benefit from peaceful technology.

If all the countries in the world abided by the international regulations that ostensibly bind them, we'd have full global nuclear disarmament by now.

Lets see now...

Iran is run by Islamic fundamentalists, who are not very nice to the west. (US, Europe, etc...) They REALLY don't like us very much at all. If you don't find the very idea of one of them developing an ICBM and pointing it at your front door step unsettling, you are very brave indeed.

:o

Yes, hmmmmm.... Let's just think...

Israel doesn't hate the western way of life and basically want to convert the globe to Islam through bloody means and the rest of them do.......

I wonder who we should allow to have nukes......

Difficult one....!

B

Originally posted by Chicago
Lets see now...

Iran is run by Islamic fundamentalists, who are not very nice to the west. (US, Europe, etc...) They REALLY don't like us very much at all. If you don't find the very idea of one of them developing an ICBM and pointing it at your front door step unsettling, you are very brave indeed.

:o

usa is run by a christian who is not very nice to the east & he's an idiot.
would u be worried if he was pointing them at you.

isreal & india plus 1 other never signed the NPT therefore they are not obliged to do anything. Iran and the rest of the world agreed not to build nuclear weapons ot weapon grade plutonium, they have done this previously & hidden it,they have now ignored the treaty & kicked out the "assessors" for WPO. does it sound a bit similar to Iraq's actions.
if they aren't hiding anything let the assessors have access.

if iran wants to develop nuclear stuff they are at liberty too in my opininon however they have agreed not to build the stuff so they should stick to their word.

Originally posted by Chicago
Iran is run by Islamic fundamentalists, who are not very nice to the west. (US, Europe, etc...) They REALLY don't like us very much at all. If you don't find the very idea of one of them developing an ICBM and pointing it at your front door step unsettling, you are very brave indeed.

I wonder if Iran would have been nicer to the West, if the US and UK hadn't been (1) so keen to put the Shah of Iran in power to oppress his own people and (2) support Saddam Hussein in his pointless war against Iran?

Iranian leaders met with Jack Straw a while back, who admitted they had made mistakes in the past (ho ho, that's putting it mildly), but I can't see Iran thirsting for revenge. They have nothing to gain from a first use of the bomb.

I suspect Iran will use the nuclear option as a deterrent to prevent a US-led invasion, nothing more.

Oh yes, didn't Iran have elections recently? As another Middle East democracy why shouldn't they too have the right to flout international law.

Western governments are so easy to please :D

I find it strange that the US is in charge of policing the worlds nuclear weapons, given that they are the only country to have actually used a nuclear weapon to kill people.

Originally posted by serapis
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a treaty, opened for signature on July 1, 1968, restricting the possession of nuclear weapons. The vast majority of sovereign states (189) are parties to the treaty.

In New York City, on May 11, 1995, more than 170 countries decided to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions.

IRAN was one of them!

Iran says it has the legal right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to carry out the nuclear fuel cycle. But thy have no nuclear power stations and have the second largest oil reserves in the world. There is no need for nuclear fuel in Iran.

Also Iran was carrying out small-scale experiments to create plutonium, one of the pathways to building nuclear weapons, for five years beyond the date when it previously insisted it had ended all such work.

Since 2003, when Iran first began admitting that it had hidden 17 years of work from the nuclear agency, it made assurances that its accounting of its activities was full. But it has repeatedly had to revise that accounting, often in the face of evidence from the agency's scientific analyses.

Need I say any more?
What serapis said.

:thumbsup:

Surely the less countries that have access to nuclear weapons the better?

Originally posted by Abdul
I wonder if Iran would have been nicer to the West, if the US and UK hadn't been (1) so keen to put the Shah of Iran in power to oppress his own people and (2) support Saddam Hussein in his pointless war against Iran?


I suspect Iran will use the nuclear option as a deterrent to prevent a US-led invasion, nothing more.



Yup :(

Originally posted by Saifa
Surely the less countries that have access to nuclear weapons the better?

Well unfortunately it is a little bit more complex than that.

Originally posted by Saifa
Surely the less countries that have access to nuclear weapons the better?

It's more a case of who is allowed access, they after all will be able to terrorise the rest of the world.

Originally posted by nick2
I find it strange that the US is in charge of policing the worlds nuclear weapons, given that they are the only country to have actually used a nuclear weapon to kill people.

Exactly..

Excuse my ignorance but... did the US ever apologise to Japan for those atrocities?

International law and politics comes down to mutual interests and who has the biggest stick.

There are plenty of reasons we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

But basically the only way we can stop them developing them is to bully them into it. Be that by using sanctions, bribes or ultimately invading them.

There is no higher power to appeal too, so if we decide that it's in our best interest for Iran not to have them, we have to do whatever we are prepared too to stop them.

We shouldn't pretend that we have some sort of moral highground from which to act, we are purely acting out of self interest. And I fully support that.

If I read this right, the underlying argument many of the above posters share is that nuclear weapons are a rather dangerous indulgence for countries governed by bellicose fundamentalists. This is a fine principle indeed, and by it Iran really shouldn't be allowed to indulge itself. But we could think of disarming a few who already have the keys to an atomic arsenal. Israel springs to mind, as does Pakistan, India, the Ukraine, the United States, France and, increasingly, the United Kingdom.

Originally posted by Anne23
Exactly..

Excuse my ignorance but... did the US ever apologise to Japan for those atrocities?

I think you're forgetting that it was Japan who started the war against the US and it was Japan who carried out some of the most unspeakable atrocities against the allied soldiers.

Whether that warranted the atom bomb is another matter, but let's not get carried away with the idea that Japan was entirely blameless

Originally posted by joyphil
If I read this right, the underlying argument many of the above posters share is that nuclear weapons are a rather dangerous indulgence for countries governed by bellicose fundamentalists. This is a fine principle indeed, and by it Iran really shouldn't be allowed to indulge itself. But we could think of disarming a few who already have the keys to an atomic arsenal. Israel springs to mind, as does Pakistan, India, the Ukraine, the United States, France and, increasingly, the United Kingdom.

it's much harder to take it away than to not let them develop it.

And I don't think we should disarm.

Originally posted by mojoworking
I think you're forgetting that it was Japan who started the war against the US and it was Japan who carried out some of the most unspeakable atrocities against the allied soldiers.

Whether that warranted the atom bomb is another matter, but let's not get carried away with the idea that Japan was entirely blameless

I don't agree with any war obviously.. but what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrendous... to unleash that kind of devastation on planet earth and its inhabitants was criminal and disgusting - nothing could justify it....

But then I just don't get where killing innocent human beings seems like a good idea to anyone anyway.... (btw.. I reckon if you replaced all the male leaders of the planet with female leaders 99% of wars would not happen)

Originally posted by Anne23
I don't agree with any war obviously.. but what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrendous... to unleash that kind of devastation on planet earth and its inhabitants was criminal and disgusting - nothing could justify it....

It is widely accepted that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved over 1,000,000 allied lives, not to mention the number of Japanese lives. The Japanese leaders at the time had told the population that the allies would rape and murder there way through the continent, therefore no one would surrender.

Originally posted by serapis
It is widely accepted that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved over 1,000,000 allied lives, not to mention the number of Japanese lives. The Japanese leaders at the time had told the population that the allies would rape and murder there way through the continent, therefore no one would surrender.

It was also said that Iraq had WMD... not sure that the reasons our world leaders give for mass murder are always particularly watertight.

Mojoworking
You're absolutely right. Japan was not only the aggressor in the Far East [from 1938 ] but killed , tortured and raped millions in China alone , not to mention other countries and their treatment of prisoners of War . There were 300,000 killed in the , "rape of Nanking " alone. For more on this , there's information and discussion on S.F. [ Hiroshima-60th. anniv. General Chat ].
There is still a lot of tension between China and Japan over the atrocities , mainly because the Japanese Premier regularly visited a War Memorial which included some convicted War Criminals. Rather like the German Premier visiting a memorial to Himmler and the SS ! ---almost unthinkable.
Also , Japanese children are to be given History textbooks almost completely ignoring the Japanese invasion of China.
By contrast , the Americans helped Japan so miuch after the war she soon becamea thriving society and a staunch ally of the Americans. Perhaps that was thye American way of saying sorry !
What a great idea to let Iran have nuclear weapons ! To be absolutely fair , it is obvious that every country in the world should be able to have them . Why not ?
In the future , I'm sure if any localised wars broke out , none of these countries would be hot-headed enough to actually use them , would they ? And even if they did , I feel sure that it wouldn't spread into a bigger nuclear war.
If by the slightest chance a nuclear war did break out and the radiation dust polished us all off , at least we'd know it wasn' t those awful Americans who'd killed us .

I still can't see this "well the Yanks have got em so we should let everyone else have em as well" arguement as a sane one.

Anything to get less nukes in the world can't be a bad idea.

Originally posted by Cyclone
it's much harder to take it away than to not let them develop it.

And I don't think we should disarm.

Oh I know, and it's terribly idealistic of me to think thus. But it is inescapably true that it remains rather difficult to have a global policy on nuclear weapons that actually works, while the have-nots can see that the haves are no better custodians of the terrible product than they.

Originally posted by Anne23
It was also said that Iraq had WMD... not sure that the reasons our world leaders give for mass murder are always particularly watertight.

You can’t compare the two like that. The dodgy dossier was put together for the purposes of invasion. The statistics I mentioned are put together by war historians and real evidence over more than 50 years and are accepted by both western and Japanese historians and retired generals!

Originally posted by joyphil
...while the have-nots can see that the haves are no better custodians of the terrible product than they.

How can you say that? When was the last nuclear war? When was the last nuclear war triggered by accident or by some nutty general?

The fact we have had them for so long and we have not resorted to using them is testament to our wiliness to talk to each other! The last thing we want is a nation who is politically unstable or whose religious beliefs are contrary to our own getting their hands on nuclear weapons. All it would take is for some religious nutcase to make a successful coup and then launch a few at the likes of Israel!

Austin Millbarge: You know what those things can do? Suck the paint off your house and give your family a permanent orange afro. :D

Originally posted by serapis
You can’t compare the two like that. The dodgy dossier was put together for the purposes of invasion. The statistics I mentioned are put together by war historians and real evidence over more than 50 years and are accepted by both western and Japanese historians and retired generals!

To be fair, my knowledge of the background to pearl harbour and the events that followed is minimal to say the least so I shouldn't really comment...

I just despair sometimes at how inhumane we as a species can be. I wish it was different.. but I can only see things getting worse from here.

It amazes me when bad things happen and people say 'oh that so bad, why wasnt anything done BEFORE to prevent it from happening?' but then still harp on about the unfairness of things like America taking an active steps to try and PREVENT these bad things from happening.

So... why cant countries like Iran and Iraq have weapons that can kill millions of people but countries like America and the UK can? Well, it is my honest opinion that the world does need a balance between policing and complete freedom. And the world does need someone/something to police it. Wether or not America were elected as the 'world police' "**** yeah!! (sorry film joke) they are doing the job and should be thanked.

Americas military power, largley determined by their nuclear capabilities acts as a deterrant to countries who in possesion of nukes would definitley use without provocation. I know this boils down to a steriotyope I have about Iran, but I firmly believe it. I am not racist and judge people on their merit but based on news reports that I see and hear Im glad that Iran dont have nukes.

Ideally the policing of the world would be done democratically and is what the UN is all about, but until they are effective someone needs to do it. This is such a big debate that their will be hundreds of people ready to argue im completley mad, but based on conversations i have had i know im not the only one who thinks like this.

Originally posted by Anne23
But then I just don't get where killing innocent human beings seems like a good idea to anyone anyway.... (btw.. I reckon if you replaced all the male leaders of the planet with female leaders 99% of wars would not happen)

Anne, I'm 100% in agreement with you there. The world would be a very different place if women ran it. And my dear, I despair myself over the very same thing. It is discouraging to see people being so cruel to one another, isn't it?

The atrocities the Japanese commited are outrageous even by today's standards. Fareast mentioned Nanking, but they also killed thousands of Dutch, British, Australian, and other Europeans in concentration camps. They starved and murdered thousands of POWS building the Thailand-Burma Railway, aka the Bridge On the River Kwai. They beat, tortured and executed thousands of American and Filipino troops during the Bataan Death March. They performed medical experiments, and used biological and chemical warfare on millions of Chinese citizens. They forced thousands of Chinese and Korean women and girls to work in brothels as "comfort women". They bombed helpless civilians and massacred populations in Hong Kong, Singapore, Manila, Luzon, Shanghai, Vietnam, and Rangoon.

Lord have mercy. Not even the Nazis did what they did.

Lest you think I have something against the Japanese people, I certainly do not. The Japanese of today are not the Japanese of yesterday.

If anything, I think the Japanese are an excellent example of people who have learned from their mistakes. They have become a peaceful, prosperous, and strong society. Out of the ashes of their own country, they have built something worth looking up to. And they did it with hard work and dedication.

And no. I don't feel Iran should have nuclear weapons. For the same reason that drunks shouldn't drive and convicted felons are forbidden from owning firearms. It's dangerous for the rest of us, and the odds are good that they'll do something awful/stupid/dangerous with them. The country has a history of instability, and there's no guarantee that said nuclear weapons won't fall into the hands of terrorists.

And those who DO think Iran should have nuclear weapons? Well, I think you just secretly want to see the US get nuked. Ya'll are about as obvious as a bagel in a bucket of grits. ;)

:) Sierra

Well said Sierra! :thumbsup:

Sierra, another well reasoned post, that in the main I agree with...

...but
Originally posted by Sierra
...The world would be a very different place if women ran it...
don't forget, we had a few years of being governed by a woman (unlike the US), and for many people it wasn't such a great idea...

...she even took us to "war" if you remember.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti women leaders, I just don't think it'd be the cure all that seems to be being intimated by Anne23.

:)

Originally posted by Sierra
And no. I don't feel Iran should have nuclear weapons. For the same reason that drunks shouldn't drive and convicted felons are forbidden from owning firearms. It's dangerous for the rest of us, and the odds are good that they'll do something awful/stupid/dangerous with them. The country has a history of instability, and there's no guarantee that said nuclear weapons won't fall into the hands of terrorists.

The whole Middle East has been unstable, for as long as most people can remember. All the more reason that I strongly believe that NO Middle East country should have WMD.

It is strange that there is one Middle East country that is allowed to develop WMD and continually flout UN resolutions, while others are bombed back into the stone ages for doing so :|

Originally posted by Sierra
And those who DO think Iran should have nuclear weapons? Well, I think you just secretly want to see the US get nuked. Ya'll are about as obvious as a bagel in a bucket of grits. ;)

:) Sierra

I'm sure that last comment was in jest, but I don't want to see the US nuked anymore than I want Iran to be invaded, just so you can continue to drive around in your 4mpg SUVs :D

Originally posted by Sierra
And those who DO think Iran should have nuclear weapons? Well, I think you just secretly want to see the US get nuked. Ya'll are about as obvious as a bagel in a bucket of grits. ;)

:) Sierra

Iran won't nuke the US. 1- it doesn't have the means for delivery and 2 - with the worlds largest nuclear arsenal, the US would (justifiably) retaliate with disproportionate force. There are only a handful of countries that can wipe a country off the map, and the USA is one of them.

But the US & allies might invade Iraq. This is now why the Iranian bomb program has such a high urgency. In fact it's quite likely they already have a test device already.

This is what happens when western poltical rhetoric starts talking up a possible conflict with Iran. I don't think there will be one though - Iraq was one proposition, Iran is entirely another.

And until Israel's well developed NBC program is out in the open, any notion of arms control in the middle east is risibly one sided.

I beg your pardon, foo. Being American, I'd quite forgotten about Margaret Thatcher. Yes, you are right.

I'm a little tired and grumpy. My inconsiderate neighbors had a HUGE party that kept half the neighborhood awake last night. The police finally came and made them shut up the racket, but I'm too wound up to sleep. Arrgghhh!

:) Sierra

U are probably right they would only use them against a u.s invation. But with the unstable situation in the middle east there is no say who they could be used agains.Also it would be silly of them to use a weapon in the smaller scale agains the u.s. For they are just looking for a reason to use the megaton class weapons that they possess. Which would be 1000s of times bigger than horoshima. Public presure in the u.s would see to that.

Originally posted by Sierra
I beg your pardon, foo. Being American, I'd quite forgotten about Margaret Thatcher.

She was a biological woman maybe, but her political gender was unquestionably alpha-male.

She played the game like a man to win it. Says more about British Politics than women.

I think Anne23 is probably right, if more female leaders meant more 'feminised' political systems around the world.

The nurture/destroy polarity in the sexes is not absolute but there is definitely a long time correlation with some notable exceptions.

But politics anywhere is not currently a game for listeners.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
...But politics anywhere is not currently a game for listeners.
Anyone who rises to power, in any system, is not going to be a "warm fuzzy person", no matter how they try to portray themselves...

...male or female.

Women leaders are not "the answer"...

...but we should still have more.

:)

Originally posted by Abdul

It is strange that there is one Middle East country that is allowed to develop WMD and continually flout UN resolutions, while others are bombed back into the stone ages for doing so :|

I'm sure that last comment was in jest, but I don't want to see the US nuked anymore than I want Iran to be invaded

:cool:

"To be is to do" - Socrates
"To do is to be" - Sartre
"Do be do be do" - Sinatra :clap: :clap:

Originally posted by Abdul
I'm sure that last comment was in jest, but I don't want to see the US nuked anymore than I want Iran to be invaded, just so you can continue to drive around in your 4mpg SUVs :D

Abdul, being a reasonable and sane person, of course you don't want to see nuclear weapons used anywhere in the world. Neither do I. I appreciate your honesty in acknowledging that the entire region is unstable, and I share your opinion that no middle eastern country should have WMD's.

I don't know what to tell you about Israel. Yes, what you say is true. I've read that they have the world's 5th largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. The obvious reason why is because they are US allies, and things are more stable there, than say, Iran.

Ha! The real reason is, they're US allies. There. I said it. Were not perfect, and we use people, ok? What can I say?

And Lordy! I think SUV's get at least 10 mpg. Don't they? I don't have one, don't want one, would never buy one. There is a vehicle BIGGER than a regular 'ol SUV. Hope you're sitting down. So help me, I've actually seen a few kids at my daughter's school driving one of these monsters. http://www.hummer.com/

I always enjoy your posts, Abdul. They're insightful and well written. But I still say, there are those who'd like to see us get at least a leeeetle taste of our own medicine. ;)

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Sierra
I beg your pardon, foo. Being American, I'd quite forgotten about Margaret Thatcher. Yes, you are right.

I'm a little tired and grumpy. My inconsiderate neighbors had a HUGE party that kept half the neighborhood awake last night. The police finally came and made them shut up the racket, but I'm too wound up to sleep. Arrgghhh!

:) Sierra

At least your police will do something about it ... the police here in the UK wont do anything about noisy neighbours having parties! But that’s a whole other thread!

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Anyone who rises to power, in any system, is not going to be a "warm fuzzy person", no matter how they try to portray themselves.
Unless there is no 'power' to rise to and you have in place non-hierarchical power structures for adminstration instead. (it's the green in me talking).

Originally posted by foo_fighter
...but we should still have more.

:) [/B]
Too right.

Originally posted by serapis
At least your police will do something about it ... the police here in the UK wont do anything about noisy neighbours having parties! But that’s a whole other thread!

Tis indeed, serapis.

Actually, I think the only reason they did something about it this time is because this lady has a habit of having loud parties, and I do mean LOUD parties on weeknights, and the complaints have piled up.

She always has live entertainment...everything from live bands and belly dancers to karaoke. All outside. And caterers.

Last New Year's Eve was a nightmare. My normally easy going husband had words with her because she'd set up a Porta-Potty smack dab on the property line. He begged her to move it somewhere safer, but she refused. She wanted it out of sight of her guests. We were forced to turn on the lights and "direct traffic" BACK to her property, lest someone fall in the pool or trip over something in the dark. We tried just leaving on all the lights, but then people got confused and thought our yard was an extension of hers. Of course, she HAD to have a party during the time when we were replacing the fences between our properties.

The last straw was when some of her guests came knocking on our doors and windows in the wee hours. They were so pie eyed, they thought they were at her place!

I don't expect my neighbors to be silent, as we make our fair share of noise. She's normally a nice woman, but she loves throwing these big shindigs, and I strongly suspect more than a few of the people who show up aren't her friends, they're just looking for a good time.

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Unless there is no 'power' to rise to and you have in place non-hierarchical power structures for adminstration instead. (it's the green in me talking)...
Aaah, but then no-one is in power...

...so my argument still stands.

;) :D

I think Margret Thatcher was far from the "lady" she thought she was. .. an unusual case... but in this male dominated world it takes a manly "woman" to get to the top.

All I'd say is.. if this weren't the case and more balanced women came into power then the world would be a much more cooperative place.

I realise this isn't going to happen because the kind of people who seek power are always the dodgy ones.. and if they weren't dodgy in the first place than the power they gain will corrupt them (or the cronies around them will corrupt them)..

I just wish we could swap for a bit.. let some intelligent and balanced women run the planet and see just how much get sorted out... women are nurturing and find all this indiscriminate killing abhorrent... unlike men who seem to be able to authorise mass murder for the sake of god and country ...

More often these days I feel like the good kid sat at the back of the schoolroom behaving while loads of rowdy kids fight it out and ruin the planet for the rest of us... why can't everyone just get on and stop acting like children?? These are real peoples lives their messing with!

Originally posted by Anne23
...All I'd say is.. if this weren't the case and more balanced women came into power then the world would be a much more cooperative place...

...let some intelligent and balanced women run the planet and see just how much get sorted out... women are nurturing and find all this indiscriminate killing abhorrent... unlike men who seem to be able to authorise mass murder for the sake of god and country...
So, should we change the title of this thread to:

Why can't Iranian women have nuclear Weapons?

:confused:

;) :D

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Iran won't nuke the US. 1- it doesn't have the means for delivery and 2 - with the worlds largest nuclear arsenal, the US would (justifiably) retaliate with disproportionate force. There are only a handful of countries that can wipe a country off the map, and the USA is one of them.

But the US & allies might invade Iraq. This is now why the Iranian bomb program has such a high urgency. In fact it's quite likely they already have a test device already.

This is what happens when western poltical rhetoric starts talking up a possible conflict with Iran. I don't think there will be one though - Iraq was one proposition, Iran is entirely another.

And until Israel's well developed NBC program is out in the open, any notion of arms control in the middle east is risibly one sided.

Good points Phan, you've thought things out more thoroughly than I have...but you're thinking like a normal, rational person.

My main concern is, what happens if some maniac gets ahold of these weapons?

Whatever else he may be, GWB is NOT a maniac.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Anyone who rises to power, in any system, is not going to be a "warm fuzzy person", no matter how they try to portray themselves...

...male or female.

Women leaders are not "the answer"...

...but we should still have more.

:)

All too true, foo. I'd also forgotten about Hilary Clinton. :hihi:

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Anne23
I realise this isn't going to happen because the kind of people who seek power are always the dodgy ones.. and if they weren't dodgy in the first place than the power they gain will corrupt them (or the cronies around them will corrupt them)..

I just wish we could swap for a bit.. let some intelligent and balanced women run the planet and see just how much get sorted out... women are nurturing and find all this indiscriminate killing abhorrent... unlike men who seem to be able to authorise mass murder for the sake of god and country ...

More often these days I feel like the good kid sat at the back of the schoolroom behaving while loads of rowdy kids fight it out and ruin the planet for the rest of us... why can't everyone just get on and stop acting like children?? These are real peoples lives their messing with!

The world is constantly shrinking, and we all must learn to get along with one another, or die trying.

Anne, let's you and I get going on this. I bet we could have the planet straightened out by dinnertime. :D

:) Sierra

The key to understanding this issue, and indeed the war in Iraq, is the close interconnection between US and Israeli policy in the Middle East. To a very large degree, US foreign policy in the region is being driven by Israel's security concerns.

Israel has established modus vivendi with Egypt and also with Jordan, so they pose very little threat to Israel at the moment. The three states which might at some point pose a challenge (albeit a weak one) to Israel's regional hegemony are Iraq, Syria and Iran.

Iraq is currently being dealt with. The US neo-cons are currently making threatening noises against Syria and Iran. The war in Iraq is going badly for the US, so there is little appetite for invasions of Syria or Iran. Otherwise, it is quite possible that Syria or Iran would have been next for regime change. However, the neo cons in the US (almost all of them ardent Zionists) are continuing to prepare the ground (by seeking to shape public attitudes and the views of policy makers) for a policy of enforced regime change in Syria and Iran.

Quite so, Lord C. Israel, that Cuckoo in the Middle Eastern nest, is very close to the hearts of American neo-conservatives. The US government is a firm friend of Israel beyond any doubt, and as you cogently suggest, American foreign policy revolves around Israeli interests and security. Would that it were otherwise. Zionism is one of the most detestable, truly racist creeds on the planet. Sadly, the paleo-conservatives of the American Right are outnumbered by these, blundering, crusading neo-conservatives who refuse to believe that anyone could dissent from their pro-Zionist, and extreme neo-liberal [free marketeer] views.

One reflects that Zionists can turn jolly nasty when they don't get what they want. British people should keep in mind the viciousness with which the Zionist Stern Gang and Irgun terrorists turned upon Arabs and British soldiers alike in Palestine. In some cases they slaughtered British soldiers, [often with refinements of cruelty] , who had recently liberated Jews from the Death Camps of the Nazis.

It is Zionism as much as Wahabist Islamic fundamentalism that poses a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East, and ultimately elsewhere.

Originally posted by timo
It is Zionism as much as Wahabist Islamic fundamentalism that poses a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East, and ultimately elsewhere.

Preach on brother, preach on. :)

It makes me sick to think of the tax dollars I pay that fund the oppression and murder of the Palestinian people in their own land.

Originally posted by headup
Preach on brother, preach on. :)

It makes me sick to think of the tax dollars I pay that fund the oppression and murder of the Palestinian people in their own land.

The Palestinians are without a doubt almost equally to blame for what’s going on over there, and until the Palestinians come together and sort out their own back yard the rest of the world isn't going to take their plight very seriously!

But we are cruising slightly off topic here!

Originally posted by timo
Quite so, Lord C. Israel, that Cuckoo in the Middle Eastern nest, is very close to the hearts of American neo-conservatives. The US government is a firm friend of Israel beyond any doubt, and as you cogently suggest, American foreign policy revolves around Israeli interests and security. Would that it were otherwise. Zionism is one of the most detestable, truly racist creeds on the planet. Sadly, the paleo-conservatives of the American Right are outnumbered by these, blundering, crusading neo-conservatives who refuse to believe that anyone could dissent from their pro-Zionist, and extreme neo-liberal [free marketeer] views.

One reflects that Zionists can turn jolly nasty when they don't get what they want. British people should keep in mind the viciousness with which the Zionist Stern Gang and Irgun terrorists turned upon Arabs and British soldiers alike in Palestine. In some cases they slaughtered British soldiers, [often with refinements of cruelty] , who had recently liberated Jews from the Death Camps of the Nazis.

It is Zionism as much as Wahabist Islamic fundamentalism that poses a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East, and ultimately elsewhere.

Indeed Timo,

The state of Israel in its present form owes its existence in large measure to terrorism (as practised for example by the Irgun and Stern gang) and also to ethnic cleansing (i.e. the forcible expulsion of much the indigenous population of Palestine). An additional factor - a very important one, which enabled this to occur - was the power of the Zionist lobby in the US. This factor, if anything, has become even more significant as a driver of US Middle East policy than it was in the 1940s.

The members of the Zionist lobby in the US will it seems to anything for Israel, except make the supreme sacrifice of actually living there. What is particularly sickening is that many members of the pro-Israel lobby in the US trumpet their concerns for human rights around the world - and loudly condemn terrorism in the Middle East and 'ethnic cleansing' in the Balkans and elsewhere, but will not brook any criticism of Israeli policies, past or present

Originally posted by robbie
article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4141072.stm)

this has always bothered me. It seems a tad two faced that countries with nuclear capability keep telling those without that they aren't allowed to have any.

because they arent allowed any by the nanny countries, just like naughty billy isnt allowed pens cos he draws on the walls

They say it's a fact that bringining peace to Israel & Palestine will bring much peace to the rest of the world. I'd be interested to see this and whether this would stop Iran from contiuing in their quest for Nuclear Weapons.

As for Iran kicking the UN out of the country, what the hell do they actually do. If a group who look to bring peace and equality to the world are asked to leave then major questions should be asked. Unfortunately i only see more trouble ahead

And as for women running the all the countries, as said before lets just hope that none of them turn up in the same outfit or they'll be trouble! :D

Originally posted by serapis
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a treaty, opened for signature on July 1, 1968, restricting the possession of nuclear weapons. The vast majority of sovereign states (189) are parties to the treaty.

In New York City, on May 11, 1995, more than 170 countries decided to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions.

IRAN was one of them!

Iran says it has the legal right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to carry out the nuclear fuel cycle. But thy have no nuclear power stations and have the second largest oil reserves in the world. There is no need for nuclear fuel in Iran.

Also Iran was carrying out small-scale experiments to create plutonium, one of the pathways to building nuclear weapons, for five years beyond the date when it previously insisted it had ended all such work.

Since 2003, when Iran first began admitting that it had hidden 17 years of work from the nuclear agency, it made assurances that its accounting of its activities was full. But it has repeatedly had to revise that accounting, often in the face of evidence from the agency's scientific analyses.

Need I say any more?

Well the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is no more. It requires member states not to research or design more nuclear weapons. America and England have broken the agreement, so it no longer stands.

If it did stand some of what you said is incorrect. It allows them to develop nuclear power plants. And just because they have oil, does not mean they do not need nuclear power plants. Weapons are a different question. You have to understand the process, for nuclear power and for weapons you need enriched Uranium. The only part of the process that is different is the last part, so the enrichment process Iran are currently working on does not actually tell us they are working on a weapon. And if you trust our intelligence agencies to know the truth, at this stage, it's a little short sighted.

Also India also signed and has nuclear weapons, and the US just oked that. So why not Iran, we trust India and Pakistan more than Iran? I don't see why.

But lets not forget France became a Nuclear power after this treaty was signed and so did Israel, we really didn't threaten invading them, or North Korea for that matter. There has been no consistency and when America made the decision to work on nuclear bunker busting bombs, it basically stuck two fingers up and the pact and invalidated it.

I see no reason why they should not have nuclear power. Weapons are a different matter. Logically i see no problem with it, but i personally beleive the fewer contries the better... but the pact should have been respected by the west.

Originally posted by Sierra
Anne, I'm 100% in agreement with you there. The world would be a very different place if women ran it. And my dear, I despair myself over the very same thing. It is discouraging to see people being so cruel to one another, isn't it?



You know i really wish women did run it. I fully agree, i think the world would be different and more importantly better.

But Iran having nuclear weapons and being able to bomb the U.S are two seperate things. People in Europe should be far mroe worried. There is currently only about 4-5 countries in the World that can make a missle that can enter a near earth orbit, it's far more comlex than even making a bomb.

A recent CIA report said Iran was at least 10 years away from making a bomb. They are far more than that away from being able to deliver that bomb to the U.S.

Thankyou again, Lord C, for your wise words re Israel. With respect to Serapis, we are not straying from the thread at all. As Lord C and I endeavour to make clear, one cannot possibly leave a variable as important as Israeli Zionism, andAmerican support for it, out of any discussion regarding threats to Middle Eastern peace.

I ask fellow posters to reflect upon how often we see Israel criticised on this forum. The answer is, seldom. People are understandably preoccupied with the threat posed by Islamic extremism, but there is an equal threat to stability posed by the American neo-Conservative-Israeli alliance. As a paleo-Conservative, my concern is for British interests. It is in our interests to forge better relations with the Arab peoples. That will never, ever come about as long as the pro-Zionist lobby is allowed to dictate terms. Successive British governments have turned a blind eye to blatent American favouritism towards Israel. As someone who has enjoyed Arab hospitality, it makes me sad to hear the cynical Arab saying, 'It is better to be an enemy of the British than to be a friend, because the British always shoot their friends in the back'. Is there any wonder it is said?

Originally posted by timo
Thankyou again, Lord C, for your wise words re Israel. With respect to Serapis, we are not straying from the thread at all. As Lord C and I endeavour to make clear, one cannot possibly leave a variable as important as Israeli Zionism, andAmerican support for it, out of any discussion regarding threats to Middle Eastern peace.

I ask fellow posters to reflect upon how often we see Israel criticised on this forum. The answer is, seldom. People are understandably preoccupied with the threat posed by Islamic extremism, but there is an equal threat to stability posed by the American neo-Conservative-Israeli alliance. As a paleo-Conservative, my concern is for British interests. It is in our interests to forge better relations with the Arab peoples. That will never, ever come about as long as the pro-Zionist lobby is allowed to dictate terms. Successive British governments have turned a blind eye to blatent American favouritism towards Israel. As someone who has enjoyed Arab hospitality, it makes me sad to hear the cynical Arab saying, 'It is better to be an enemy of the British than to be a friend, because the British always shoot their friends in the back'. Is there any wonder it is said?

isnt the reason we dont care about israel having nukes that they are unlikely to attack the USA? Also it is unlikely the US will want to invade them in the near future so them having nukes isnt a problem. Iran or Syria or Iraq is a different story of course.

They dont care about pakistan or india or n.korea because it is too late to stop them now they have them. That doesnt make it any less desirable to stop others gaining them though. The problem is there isnt much you can do once a country has nukes apart from use persuasion. And that sure isnt going to work unless the west disarms. So I am afraid we are stuck with nukes for a long time to come until all the leaders change their attitudes.

Nicely put Timo. Israel - an entirely different construct from Judeism, as orthodox Jewish acquaintances of mine are at great pains to point out - is much maligned. But not nearly enough. It, and its relationship with the US, are mountain ranges on the 'roadmap tp peace'. It'll take much clever engineering to cross them.

Originally posted by serapis
The Palestinians are without a doubt almost equally to blame for what’s going on over there, and until the Palestinians come together and sort out their own back yard the rest of the world isn't going to take their plight very seriously!

But we are cruising slightly off topic here!

The Palestinians are as much to blame? How? Let's separate Hamas and so on from the Palestinian people and look at what happens to them on a day to day basis in THEIR COUNTRY. Their houses and their farms are bulldozed to make way for Isreali settlements....most of whom are not even native to Isreal...Russians, Americans, Eastern Europeans and so on.

They are contained behind a wall that has been deemed illegal by the UN. They are used as target practice by IDF forces. I could go on.

the USA did not "okay" the indian and pakastani nuclear programs. Until very recently they had been under UN sanctions for some considerable time.

Joyphil,
Thanks for your kind words. I echo what you have just said. The villains I despise are the Zionists of Israel and the neo-Con lobby. I bear no ill will whatsoever towards Jewish people per se.

Until the US accepts that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing of paelstine we wont get anywhere,you cant have a situation where the jews go about occupying someone elses land and expect there to be peace,it aint going to happen.
The jews have to go back to at least pre 67 war boundries and then and only then can the world have any hope of a resolution to the arab jew situation.

To return to the subject of the thread, Bush reportedly gave an interview on Israeli TV yesterday saying that he could not rule out the use of force against Iran to halt its nuclear program.

What this is likely to mean in my view is not an Iraq style invasion, but rather bombing raids or cruise missile strikes against the nuclear power plants. They may not even be undertaken by the US. Israel is ready willing and able to do this by itself, providing its gets the appropriate nods and winks from Washington, as it did prior to its strikes on Iraq's nuclear plants in the 1980s.

If Israel performs the above operation, it will do so using US planes or missiles (indeed, using the latest cutting edge military technology supplied to it by the US). It will also, as I say above, receive the tacit or explicit approval of Washington.

The result will be even more resentment against the US in the Middle East and in the wider muslim world.

At this point, it would be nice to be able to say roll on 2008, when monkeyboy completes his second term. Unfortunately, there seems little prospect that the next US president (whether Democrat or Republican) will break with the continuity in US policy towards Israel and the Middle East.