View Full Version : Iran's Honesty In Disarmament Forum Causes USA and Israel Walkouts
I agree with Iran about this; why should USA and Israel be allowed to have nukes but they won't let anyone else have them? That's hypocrisy and the biggest threat to security, and Iran was correct to point that out. The reason USA and Israel walked out is because they have no good answer to give in response to the truthful assertion by Iran. Their walking out is a shameful admission of guilt in my view.
Iran says Israel, U.S. threaten Mideast
Iran says Israel, U.S. threaten Mideast By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writer
GENEVA - Iran's foreign minister accused Israel and the United States of posing the main threats to the security of the Middle East. The U.S. and Israeli delegations walked out during the speech Tuesday.
The comments from Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki come as Iran — under sanctions for its refusal to stop uranium enrichment — faces increasing pressure to open its nuclear program to greater scrutiny. The United States and some allies accuse Iran of using the atomic program as a pretext to build weapons; Iran says its intentions are peaceful.
Mottaki told the world's top disarmament forum that Israel was the only country in the region that refuses to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last year acknowledged that his country had nuclear weapons — which Olmert denies doing.
A nuclear-armed Israel poses "a uniquely grave threat to regional and international peace and security and requires to be seriously dealt with by the international community taking practical measures," Mottaki told the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament.
Mottaki referred to Israel as "the Zionist regime," which he said had "a long and dark record of crimes and atrocities such as occupation, aggression, militarism, state terrorism, crimes against humanity and apartheid."
Israeli Ambassador Yitzhak Levanon said his delegation found the speech insulting and decided to leave: "Everybody noticed that we left because we made a small noise, showing everybody that we disagree with his remarks."
They were followed by the U.S. delegation, and the American mission said in a statement that Mottaki's "outrageous and divisive comments are not useful."
"He went too far," Levanon told The Associated Press, adding that it was "a blatant insult" to the conference to stray in such a way from the disarmament issues the body is supposed to consider.
"It seems the Iranians are under international pressure and this is what explains their undiplomatic behavior," Levanon said.
Mottaki noted the growing pressure being exerted on Iran in the U.N. Security Council, with a series of sanctions aimed at forcing the country to suspend uranium enrichment.
"It is surprising that while no practical step is taken to contain the real source of nuclear danger in the Middle East, my country is under tremendous pressure to renounce its inalienable right for peaceful use of nuclear energy," Mottaki said.
The other threat to the Middle East comes from the United States, which he said invaded Iraq on the pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and bringing more security to the region.
"After years of searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq it is obvious the preparation for the attack on Iraq was based on false or, in fact, forged information," Mottaki said.
For the rest, he said, "one can easily judge if there is more security or insecurity in the region as the result of such a huge military operation. Those who created such a situation in Iraq cannot disregard their responsibility."
The conference is intended to negotiate disarmament treaties, but deep divisions over what weapons should be tackled next have left it little more than a forum for speeches since it created the nuclear test-ban treaty in 1996.
Mottaki told reporters his country is prepared to discuss the suspension of uranium enrichment if the U.N. Security Council closes the file on Iran's nuclear program — a call Iran has made before without success.
"We have been proposing the suspension of the resolution within the Security Council," Mottaki told reporters. "And then we will be able to sit and talk about all issues."
He said Iran was committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the standoff over its nuclear program.
I agree with Iran about this; why should USA and Israel be allowed to have nukes but they won't let anyone else have them? That's hypocrisy and the biggest threat to security, and Iran was correct to point that out. The reason USA and Israel walked out is because they have no good answer to give in response to the truthful assertion by Iran. Their walking out is a shameful admission of guilt in my view.
:yes:
--> just to add, imo it makes no difference that the US and America are "responsible" enough to own nukes, as long as they have them, others will not feel safe without them
:2thumbsup:
Seamus Fermanagh
03-13-2007, 18:32
I agree with Iran about this; why should USA and Israel be allowed to have nukes but they won't let anyone else have them? That's hypocrisy and the biggest threat to security, and Iran was correct to point that out. The reason USA and Israel walked out is because they have no good answer to give in response to the truthful assertion by Iran. Their walking out is a shameful admission of guilt in my view.
So it is your assertion that it is hypocritical of the USA to demand that Iran cease the development of nuclear weapons when the USA itself (and very probably Israel) possess the same. I'm not sure that walking out constitutes an implicit admission of any "guilt" (for what?), though it clearly signals that neither country wishes to negotiate with Iran's assertion as an opening premise.
Hypocritical or not, it is in the strategic interests of the USA for Iran to be denied this capability. How do you address this?
gunslinger
03-13-2007, 18:36
The U.S., Russia, China and other governments which own nukes are forced to operate under the assumption that if they ever used those nukes, they would face a very real possibility of being annihilated by nuclear counter attacks. It's the old MAD scenario which probably prevented WWIII. The reasons for not allowing state sponsors of terrorism to own nukes is the probablility that the weapons will end up in the hands of terrorist organizations which can deploy those weapons independently, without fear of reprisal, based on the fact that they don't officially represent any nation or geographical location which could, in turn, be targeted for nuclear counter attack.
doc_bean
03-13-2007, 18:41
The U.S., Russia, China and other governments which own nukes are forced to operate under the assumption that if they ever used those nukes, they would face a very real possibility of being annihilated by nuclear counter attacks. It's the old MAD scenario which probably prevented WWIII. The reasons for not allowing state sponsors of terrorism to own nukes is the probablility that the weapons will end up in the hands of terrorist organizations which can deploy those weapons independently, without fear of reprisal, based on the fact that they don't officially represent any nation or geographical location which could, in turn, be targeted for nuclear counter attack.
While very true, what is stopping the US from doing something similar, besides the 'moral objections' to terrorism ? Iran isn't really a terrorist supporting nation, Saudi Arabia has that covered. Let's not forget that the US is largely responsible for Israel obtaining nuclear weapons, a nation with questionable morals/leadership as well...
I can definitely see both sides here.
Crazed Rabbit
03-13-2007, 18:48
I agree with Iran about this; why should USA and Israel be allowed to have nukes but they won't let anyone else have them? That's hypocrisy and the biggest threat to security, and Iran was correct to point that out. The reason USA and Israel walked out is because they have no good answer to give in response to the truthful assertion by Iran. Their walking out is a shameful admission of guilt in my view.
It is in America's, and probably most of the world's, interests, to prevent Iran from getting nukes.
Neither America nor Israel has threatened to wipe another nation off the face of the earth, nor do they sponsor large terrorist organizations in other countries.
Yes, we can have nukes but they can't. So what? There should be no stupid moral relativity in this - just because we can have nukes doesn't mean they can. They certainly don't need them, and they certainly have showed they shouldn't have them.
Iran showed no 'honesty' whatsoever at this convention; they are filthy liars and autocrats, about as far from the truth as you can get.
Crazed Rabbit
doc_bean
03-13-2007, 18:52
It is in America's, and probably most of the world's, interests, to prevent Iran from getting nukes.
Neither America nor Israel has threatened to wipe another nation off the face of the earth, nor do they sponsor large terrorist organizations in other countries.
I think they did actually. India and Pakistan certainly had some heavy rethoric going on between them in the day...
Yes, we can have nukes but they can't. So what? There should be no stupid moral relativity in this - just because we can have nukes doesn't mean they can. They certainly don't need them, and they certainly have showed they shouldn't have them.
What the hell does this have to do with moral relativity ? Why don't they need them ? If I was living next to Israel and Iraq I'd certainly like to feel a little more secure.
Iran showed no 'honesty' whatsoever at this convention; they are filthy liars and autocrats, about as far from the truth as you can get.
Crazed Rabbit
What did they lie about ?
Seamus Fermanagh
03-13-2007, 18:53
While very true, what is stopping the US from doing something similar, besides the 'moral objections' to terrorism?
Nothing. The USA, despite its policy flaws and "tunnel vision" problems (esp. during the Cold War), has a fair track record, in comparative terms, of "moral" behavior in international affairs. Mind you, a bit more intelligence at several points would've helped.
Iran isn't really a terrorist supporting nation, Saudi Arabia has that covered.
The State Dept. has named Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism for many years and their support for Hezbollah, among others, is broadly acknowledged. Saudi Arabia -- as a state -- does not sponsor or support same (though to be fair to your point, they have tried to "buy off" terrorist organizations and many individual Saudis have made significant contributions to terror organizations).
Let's not forget that the US is largely responsible for Israel obtaining nuclear weapons, a nation with questionable morals/leadership as well...
France also played a major role in the broadly acknowledged (though never officially confirmed by Israel) acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Israelis.
Gawain of Orkeny
03-13-2007, 18:57
I dont doubt that If Iran had the nukes first they would nuke anyone who tried to even develope this technology. This idea some of you have that all nations are morrally equivelant is beyond me. Funny, it seems the same people who favor gun contol here are all for nuclear proliferation. Talk about hypocrisy.
Pannonian
03-13-2007, 19:02
The U.S., Russia, China and other governments which own nukes are forced to operate under the assumption that if they ever used those nukes, they would face a very real possibility of being annihilated by nuclear counter attacks. It's the old MAD scenario which probably prevented WWIII. The reasons for not allowing state sponsors of terrorism to own nukes is the probablility that the weapons will end up in the hands of terrorist organizations which can deploy those weapons independently, without fear of reprisal, based on the fact that they don't officially represent any nation or geographical location which could, in turn, be targeted for nuclear counter attack.
The old argument again. Is there any evidence that the Iranian government would seriously consider giving its nuclear materials to outside parties? AFAIK only France and Pakistan have ever shared their nuclear knowledge with other countries - France shared theirs with Israel, Pakistan shared theirs with goodness knows how many others. And as for sponsors of terrorist organisations - everyone has done so at some stage. The US currently sponsors some Kurdish groups the Iranian government classify as terrorists.
Given its conduct in the region, there is no moral argument the US can pose against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons - certainly none anyone would believe after crying wolf in Iraq. The only sound argument is that of US interests, as Seamus has put forward.
It is in America's, and probably most of the world's, interests, to prevent Iran from getting nukes.
Neither America nor Israel has threatened to wipe another nation off the face of the earth, nor do they sponsor large terrorist organizations in other countries.
Yes, we can have nukes but they can't. So what? There should be no stupid moral relativity in this - just because we can have nukes doesn't mean they can. They certainly don't need them, and they certainly have showed they shouldn't have them.
Iran showed no 'honesty' whatsoever at this convention; they are filthy liars and autocrats,
It's in much of the world's interest for the USA and Israel not to have nukes, especially Muslim nations.
Sure America doesn't "threaten" to wipe other nations off the face of the Earth ---it just goes right on ahead and invades/occupies/installs puppet governments in them - which is way worse than making threats is. As does Israel to a lesser extent.
Iran needs nukes to defend itself vs. Israel.
Not sure how "so what" can be used to dismiss equity in this situation as if USA is "god" of the world (like it seemingly thinks it is) and is inherently worthy of special treatment above all other nations (it is not).
USA is clearly guilty of many if not more lies than any Iran might have told (ie: saying Iraq has WMD).
We've had this argument already (I just spent a few minutes searching for the thread, no luck). Iran has signed the NPT as a "non-nuclear weapon state", and in doing so has stated that it will not make weapons. The US has signed, as a "nuclear weapon state", so it gets to keep it's weapons, as long as it abides by the treaty limitations. Israel has not signed, so it can do what it wants.
If Iran wants to make weapons, it should first comply with Article X of the treaty, and then get on with building them. Until then, it is subject to inspections and penalties.
It's in much of the world's interest for the USA and Israel not to have nukes, especially Muslim nations.
Sure America doesn't "threaten" to wipe other nations off the face of the Earth ---it just goes right on ahead and invades/occupies/installs puppet governments in them - which is way worse than making threats is. As does Israel to a lesser extent.
Iran needs nukes to defend itself vs. Israel.
Not sure how "so what" can be used to dismiss equity in this situation as if USA is "god" of the world (like it seemingly thinks it is) and is inherently worthy of special treatment above all other nations (it is not).
USA is clearly guilty of many if not more lies than any Iran might have told (ie: saying Iraq has WMD).
Navros, your, once again, one sided view of the situation is absolutely ridiculous. Neither side is is "morally correct" in this situation. I really could give two ##### about being moral. What I care about somebody like Iran, who is an official state sponsor of terrorism having nuclear weapons. "Iran needs to defend itself from Israel??!?!?!?!?!?!?!" Give me a break! The reason the Isreali's have nuclear weapons to counter balance the huge advantage the Arabs and Iran would if they suddenly ever decided to work together. ( Remember how many times Israel has been invaded in the past?) Israel does not threaten Iran daily with annihilation. Finally, all countries lie. It is silly to say the USA lies more than Iran.
USA's invasion of Iraq and putting Saddam on "trial" and "executing" him are cases of USA participating in state sponsored terrorism considering that all of those things are unlawful use of violence. Not sure why it's "okay" for USA to do it but not other nations.
Navros, your, once again, one sided view of the situation is absolutely ridiculous. Neither side is is "morally correct" in this situation. I really could give two ##### about being moral. What I care about somebody like Iran, who is an official state sponsor of terrorism having nuclear weapons. "Iran needs to defend itself from Israel??!?!?!?!?!?!?!" Give me a break! The reason the Isreali's have nuclear weapons to counter balance the huge advantage the Arabs and Iran would if they suddenly ever decided to work together. ( Remember how many times Israel has been invaded in the past?) Israel does not threaten Iran daily with annihilation. Finally, all countries lie. It is silly to say the USA lies more than Iran.
But what right has the US got to tell Iran it can't have Nuclear weapons when it has them?
--> Israel cannot use their Nukes anyway...
Iran has signed the NPT as a "non-nuclear weapon state", and in doing so has stated that it will not make weapons. The US has signed, as a "nuclear weapon state", so it gets to keep it's weapons, as long as it abides by the treaty limitations. Israel has not signed, so it can do what it wants.
:yes:
Hardly a fair agreement though...
:2thumbsup:
Seamus Fermanagh
03-13-2007, 20:03
USA's invasion of Iraq and putting Saddam on "trial" and "executing" him are cases of USA participating in state sponsored terrorism considering that all of those things are unlawful use of violence. Not sure why it's "okay" for USA to do it but not other nations.
Under this "definition," any act of aggression and all forms of military effort save for the direct defense of one's homeland are "terrorism." That is a ludicrous over-expansion of the term.
However ill-considered you believe U.S. policy to have been in this instance, the U.S. does not countenance the purposeful targeting of civilians as the means to achieve its political objectives. We do, moreover, expend considerable effort not to target the uninvolved.
ShadeHonestus
03-13-2007, 20:05
USA is clearly guilty of many if not more lies than any Iran might have told (ie: saying Iraq has WMD).
Did Iran enjoy the taste of Iraq's WMDs...did they taste of mustard?
Iran has an anti-israeli agenda, clearly. Just as Israel has an "anti-whoever tries to exterminate us" agenda. The rhetoric from Iran through the ages has been the desire to see Israel removed from the face of the earth.
So basically:
1. Israel won't allow Iran to actually obtain nukes. (see Iraqi reactor).
2. Iran will develop nukes and there will be a nuclear exchange.
3. Iran and Israel will serve as mutual deterence. Flawed, Israel's possession of nukes has not stopped Iran from funding terrorist warfare against it.
4. Iran wakes up and realizes they are being led by some of the craziest rats in the outhouse.
Under this "definition," any act of aggression and all forms of military effort save for the direct defense of one's homeland are "terrorism." That is a ludicrous over-expansion of the term.
However ill-considered you believe U.S. policy to have been in this instance, the U.S. does not countenance the purposeful targeting of civilians as the means to achieve its political objectives. We do, moreover, expend considerable effort not to target the uninvolved.
Prior to posting I got the definition of terrorism from dictionary.com just to be sure my post was properly stated.
This definition seems perfectly reasonable as it's stated in the dictionary. I'm sure the USA would like to be able to warp the definition to one that could exclude it's own terroristic actions, but really it can't.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Targetting civilians is not an inherent part of the definition of terrorism.
:yes:
Hardly a fair agreement though...
:2thumbsup:
On the contrary. Iran can build them, it just needs to comply with Article X of the NPT to leave the treaty first. Simple as that.
(Of course, the consequences of leaving the treaty can hardly be called "simple").
But what right has the US got to tell Iran it can't have Nuclear weapons when it has them?
Power
Welcome to the real world.
The Wizard
03-13-2007, 20:41
Because the U.S. and Israel aren't ruled by a tinpot dictatorship liable to use such powerful weaponry in the most irresponsible of ways?
Okay two falsehoods are being stated in regards to nuclear weapons - one has been pointed out in reference to the NPT treaty that was signed by Iran. If one supports the concept of international law, one must by definition not support Iran's development of nuclear weapons.
Two is that the United States did not assist Israel in its development of nuclear weapons. A European nation has that dishonor. What the United States is guilty of in regards to Israel's development is to quietly brush it under the dipomatic carpet and ignore the development of weapons by Israel. It makes the postion of the USA hypocritical but that is all.
As for Iran - if they wish to develop nuclear energy they must do so in accordance to the treaties that they signed. Anything outside of that brings their actions to question. Which is exactly the intent of the International agreements that Iran signed.
In fact I find the support by some of Iran's development of nuclear weapons in direct violation of international law just as hypocritical as the statement in the opening of this thread.
If the United States violated international law in its invasion of Iraq and your angry about that, then you should also be angry at Iran for violating international law in its desire to build nuclear weapons. Yes indeed Navarous you are demonstrating your own hypocrisy very well.
Because the U.S. and Israel aren't ruled by a tinpot dictatorship liable to use such powerful weaponry in the most irresponsible of ways?
very arguable....
Its not so much whether Iran should have Nukes (I doubt many people really want them to have them), its the hypocricy of the US in condemning Iran for wanting to make them
--> if Israel has Nukes then Iran won't feel safe without them --> the whole MAD thing again
:2thumbsup:
ShadeHonestus
03-13-2007, 20:59
At what point does a man who is correct, become incorrect, because he is perceived (by those who wish to cast aspersions on him) to be a hypocrite?
Is a person more correct than another if they choose do so something objectionable by clouding that action in another's perceived hypocrisy.
Is a cat no longer a cat because a person has good reason to not like or favor cats?
I'm more of a dog person, so I shouldn't speak about cats. I don't have an unbiased, non-hypocritical view on why a cat is indeed a cat.
I personally think emu's are the answer...
The Wizard
03-13-2007, 21:20
very arguable....
So you're arguing that two democratic states -- Israel and the United States -- have a similar, or even higher, "tinpot level" as such fun dictatorships such as Kim Jong Il's North Korea or the Ayatollahs' Iran?
Crazed Rabbit
03-13-2007, 21:33
It's in much of the world's interest for the USA and Israel not to have nukes, especially Muslim nations.[QUOTE]
You'd prefer the USSR won the cold war, which would probably have been much hotter, then?
[QUOTE]
Sure America doesn't "threaten" to wipe other nations off the face of the Earth ---it just goes right on ahead and invades/occupies/installs puppet governments in them - which is way worse than making threats is. As does Israel to a lesser extent.
So now invading Iraq, believing it was necessary to defend ourselves, and trying to form a democracy is equivalent to wiping it off the face of the earth?
Iran needs nukes to defend itself vs. Israel.
L O L, that is hilarious man. How many times has Israel attacked Iran? How many times has Iran threatened to destroy Israel?
Not sure how "so what" can be used to dismiss equity in this situation as if USA is "god" of the world (like it seemingly thinks it is) and is inherently worthy of special treatment above all other nations (it is not).
Oh, not inherently worthy. We just have more power than any other nation. You speak of dismissing equity - what is so important about equity?
Also, Iran is violating International law - that makes them in the wrong.
USA is clearly guilty of many if not more lies than any Iran might have told (ie: saying Iraq has WMD).
You ever read any of the news releases from the madman president Iran has?
Crazed Rabbit
doc_bean
03-13-2007, 21:42
I dont doubt that If Iran had the nukes first they would nuke anyone who tried to even develope this technology. This idea some of you have that all nations are morrally equivelant is beyond me. Funny, it seems the same people who favor gun contol here are all for nuclear proliferation. Talk about hypocrisy.
For the record, I'm not in favour of them acquiring nukes, I can just see their point, that's all.
So now invading Iraq, believing it was necessary to defend ourselves, and trying to form a democracy is equivalent to wiping it off the face of the earth?
Maybe not a precise equivalent, but definitely of the same kin.
Instead of wiping it off the face of the earth, they just wipe off the face of the earth anyone who will oppose their invasion instead of willingly be suppressed by them; and then make the rest into their puppets. Not all that much difference between the two.
HoreTore
03-13-2007, 21:59
Has everyone forgotten that USA has actually used their nuclear bombs?
And that was with a democratic government... They coldly administered the deaths of thousands of japanese civilians. I really can't see any argument why they wouldn't do it again, they have their bombs for a reason. That reason is to have the option to kill millions of civilians. They may call it defense, but honestly, your safety can be provided without the death of a million innocent civilians.
The world would be a LOT safer if noone had the bomb. Yes, we should stop Iran from getting it. And we should force everyone else to destroy their bombs. It's a terrible weapon, and noone hould ever have it, let alone use it.
lancelot
03-13-2007, 21:59
Hardly a fair agreement though...
:2thumbsup:
I think I would be correct in stating that it is a completely voluntary agreement that Iran signed up to and can walk out of at any time. The treaty was to afirm the desire to avoid the spread of nukes- unfortunately, this happened after many states had nukes and it dawned on the world what nuclear war could really entail. You cant really cry unfair when you join of your own free will.
Iran needs nukes to defend itself vs. Israel.
Really? I have to ask if you actually believe that seeing as Israel could have destroyed Iran already using the nukes it has, could it not, using your logic?
So you're arguing that two democratic states -- Israel and the United States -- have a similar, or even higher, "tinpot level" as such fun dictatorships such as Kim Jong Il's North Korea or the Ayatollahs' Iran?
sorry - should have added :laugh4: smiley...
Is a person more correct than another if they choose do so something objectionable by clouding that action in another's perceived hypocrisy.
Iran shouldn't have Nukes, imo noone should, however it's very difficult to get Iran to stop making Nuclear weapons when from their pov America and Israel are telling them to do it while not considering it themselves..
--> The US are saying the right things, but Iran won't pay attention until they are willing set an example
I think I would be correct in stating that it is a completely voluntary agreement that Iran signed up to and can walk out of at any time. The treaty was to afirm the desire to avoid the spread of nukes- unfortunately, this happened after many states had nukes and it dawned on the world what nuclear war could really entail. You cant really cry unfair when you join of your own free will.
:yes:
It seems to me that if Iran can leave the treaty (Article X) and doesnt want too, their must be something preventing it from doing so...
The world would be a LOT safer if noone had the bomb. Yes, we should stop Iran from getting it. And we should force everyone else to destroy their bombs. It's a terrible weapon, and noone hould ever have it, let alone use it.
:yes: --> but sadly complete disarmement is slightly unrealistic :no:
:2thumbsup:
ShadeHonestus
03-13-2007, 22:20
Has everyone forgotten that USA has actually used their nuclear bombs? And that was with a democratic government... They coldly administered the deaths of thousands of japanese civilians. They may call it defense, but honestly, your safety can be provided without the death of a million innocent civilians.
For proper perspective.
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 total japanese civilian casualties by the two bombs, counting the aftermath and subsequent deaths, much less initially. The total Japanese civilian deaths was something like 600,000, less than 1% of its population at the time.
7,000,000 Chinese civilians died
11,500,000 Russians civilians died
1,800,000 Germans civilians died
Around 32,000,000 civilian deaths during WW2.
0.6% of the civilian casualties of WW2 were the result of The Bomb.
Adrian II
03-13-2007, 22:28
Neither America nor Israel has threatened to wipe another nation off the face of the earth, nor do they sponsor large terrorist organizations in other countries.How quickly we forget, eh?
The U.S. has sponsored more terrorism than the Republic of Iran ever has since its inception. To name but one example: only a few years ago, in 1999, President Clinton formally apologised to Guatemala for the U.S. backing of so-called 'counter-insurgency' forces ( = death squads) in its 36-year civil war.
Of course defendants of such policies might counter that there were more important interests at stake than the tens of thousands of Guatemalans who died at their hands. No doubt Iran would state the same with regard to its interference in Lebanon and its support for terrorist movements.
Apart from the fact that Iran now borders on three nuclear powers (Russia, China and Pakistan) while a fourth (Israel) is nearby, the American invasion of Iraq (adding a fifth nuclear power camping on its border) makes it almost inevitable that Tehran will want to acquire a nuclear capacity.
The western diplomatic protests of the moment are so much crying over spilled milk. I wish it were different. Only an overall settlement of issues in the Middle East will ever bring relief, but I am not aware of any initiative in that direction.
ShadeHonestus
03-13-2007, 22:28
Iran won't pay attention until they are willing set an example
Any example the U.S. or any western power sets will be viewed as suspect as they are the infidel. The west is in direct conflict with Islamo-fascism. The U.S. could hand over its entire arsenal to Hezbollah and they would find this as a pretext to invade Israel. You'd have more chances for a constructive sit down between a Polish Jew and Gen Heydrich in 1941.
CrossLOPER
03-13-2007, 22:30
For proper perspective.
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 total japanese civilian casualties by the two bombs...
Oh :daisy:! ONLY 200,000? :daisy:, not even fallout can justify that.
ajaxfetish
03-13-2007, 22:34
Shade didn't use the word 'only' in describing the casualties. 200,000 is a lot of people to die, especially from the use of only 2 weapons. He was putting the death toll of those atomic bombs in context of the civilian death toll of the war as a whole. IIRC, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. That's not to downplay the destruction and devastation of nuclear weapons, but to keep in mind they're not the end all and be all of killing lots of people.
Ajax
Has everyone forgotten that USA has actually used their nuclear bombs?
And that was with a democratic government... They coldly administered the deaths of thousands of japanese civilians. I really can't see any argument why they wouldn't do it again, they have their bombs for a reason. That reason is to have the option to kill millions of civilians. They may call it defense, but honestly, your safety can be provided without the death of a million innocent civilians.
Not really comparable. It also can be argued that using a nuclear bomb was the best way to end the war minimizing the damage done to both sides. That is another topic though.
CrossLOPER
03-13-2007, 22:57
Shade didn't use the word 'only' in describing the casualties...
I am well aware of the "proper perspective" that Shade pointed out. However, I felt that it came dangerously close to downplaying the scale of destruction caused by the weapons. It is my belief that the use of nuclear weaponry should not be seen as acceptable because a handful of statistics show that a six (more?less?) year war and the events surrounding it resulted in more deaths than two bombs dropped in the final weeks of that same war.
Get it?
It also can be argued that using a nuclear bomb was the best way to end the war minimizing the damage done to both sides.
Alright, well if a demonstration was in order, why wasn't the weapon detonated outside a city?
Goofball
03-13-2007, 23:19
To any of my fellow lefties who are even hinting that Iran should be allowed to have nukes:
Are you people out of your freaking minds?
This is Iran we are talking about, folks, not Switzerland or Belgium.
Give your heads a long hard shake.
Jeez...
:no:
ShadeHonestus
03-13-2007, 23:26
I am well aware of the "proper perspective" that Shade pointed out. However, I felt that it came dangerously close to downplaying the scale of destruction caused by the weapons. year war and the events surrounding it resulted in more deaths than two bombs dropped in the final weeks of that same war.
Time was not the measure, quantification was.
It is my belief that the use of nuclear weaponry should not be seen as acceptable because a handful of statistics show that a six (more?less?)
Who said it was acceptable? Thats for another thread which I'm sure has been discussed here already and to every end by every armchair historian. I did not produce a handful of statistics, I pointed a out a few of the nations that lost the most civilians, none of which were on the receiving end of the Bomb. I then showed the total...notice the word "total" estimated civilian casaulties for the war.
If you take offense to proper perspective then you have a problem with reality, not my stating the facts to show the destructive power of conventional weapons in the absence of nuclear weapons. Or maybe you're just taking the first opportunity to hijack this into a "bad america for using the bomb" thread. Which is most likely the case from what you wrote below.
Alright, well if a demonstration was in order, why wasn't the weapon detonated outside a city?
Why didn't the japanese stab dummies instead of tossing Chinese babies on their bayonets like a macabre game of ring toss at the Nanking Invitational.
Oh here's some more perspective you'll hate including some from my above post:
7 million Chinese civilians dead (at the hands of who? the tooth fairy?)
3 million Chinese military dead
--------------------------------------
70% of all casaulties were civilian
600,000 Japanese civilians dead
2,000,000 Japanese military dead
--------------------------------------
24% of all casualties were civilian
...things that make you go hmmmm
No doubt the power of the Atom in the hands of the Japanese would have been revered more and never unleashed upon those Chinese they respected.
I do not wish to see this thread go the way of :dancinglock: "peanut butter jelly time"
Papewaio
03-13-2007, 23:52
Actually the more glaring argument is the US supporting nuclear proliferation of India because it will get them a better trade deal.
The US is putting pressure on Australia to supply uranium to India despite Australia not wanting to supply anyone who hasn't signed the NPT.
This is what Iran should have focused on, that US is quite happy to not only ignore that other countries are making nuclear weapons outside the NPT, but supply countries that have not signed the NPT in cases that it gains an economic advantage. I was fairly certain that signatories of the NPT weren't supposed to do such...
As for Israel and nuclear weapons... well if they do then it was the French who most probably supplied them, the same guys who Iran might feel in debited to regarding a certain Ayatollah...
Pannonian
03-14-2007, 00:01
Also, if the US is really aiming at stopping Iran's nuclear programme, they'd be better advised to try arguments other than those they've rehearsed against Iraq. After Iraq, everyone is suspicious of neocon threads running through US foreign policy, and few will take America's word on anything any more. So come up with a good argument, back it up with substance, and people might start supporing you. Otherwise, do it alone, with whatever friends you can muster (probably only Israel if they want military action).
ShadeHonestus
03-14-2007, 00:13
Also, if the US is really aiming at stopping Iran's nuclear programme, they'd be better advised to try arguments other than those they've rehearsed against Iraq. After Iraq, everyone is suspicious of neocon threads running through US foreign policy, and few will take America's word on anything any more. So come up with a good argument, back it up with substance, and people might start supporing you. Otherwise, do it alone, with whatever friends you can muster (probably only Israel if they want military action).
IMO we should really just not give a damn. I mean honestly, let the Iranians get the nukes, in fact, lets give it to them ourselves. I bet even then the world won't believe it. Then we just sit back and watch the fireworks. I think we should pull all our troops from around the world and close up our borders nice and tight maybe become a little socialist in the process. Then all those little countries who want to play like a big boy and hate the U.S. because they aren't one can go ahead and play their little games. When the dust settles and the glass hardens...don't come knocking, oh wait, you'll be dead.
Preferaby we'd have a fail safe missile shield so when the **** hits the fan we can lob a few birds out there for fun. I vote we lob the majority of them at Europe so we can hear the fun over their incessant whining and lack of grattitude.
just in case you missed it..../sarcasm off
HoreTore
03-14-2007, 00:52
:yes: --> but sadly complete disarmement is slightly unrealistic :no:
Not really, we are getting rid of the landmines. Soon we'll hopefully get rid of the cluster bombs. It isn't too unrealistic to say that in 50-100 years, the nuclear bomb will have disappeared.
That however, will depend on more whether or not USA stops researching better bombs, not whether or not Iran abstains from it...
Marshal Murat
03-14-2007, 01:20
Stopping nuclear development is unrealistic. The knowledge is out there (thank you internet!) so any Tom, Dick, and Harry who can buy some uranium and develop it can make a nuclear bomb.
I also detected 'Two wrongs don't make it right' arguments across the board.
We rehearsed something similar to this at a separate forum, and guess what?
BOTH SIDES WERE ANNIHILATED!
While US is led by something of a loose cannon, it's a loose cannon that can be impeached! Unlike several dictators whose only ticket outa there is :hmg:
Back to the nonsensical bashing...:viking:
Cataphract_Of_The_City
03-14-2007, 02:22
There is nothing more hilarious than Americans claiming that the US have the moral highground to deny nuclear weapons to other nations. Not only the US is the only country on earth that used nuclear weapons, not only have they directly sponsored terrorism (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Turkey, East Timor, Israel etc etc), not only they increased "global terrorism" danger (7fold by what I read) by their economically driven military adventures in Iraq using false evidence (i don't want to hear the "we thought so at the time" crap) but they are trying to dictate to Iran what to do after being the ones that engineered the overthrow of its democratically elected goverment in 53. Honestly, it doesn't get any better than this. And MM, hold your breath until the time Bush in impeached. You will be the man who never breathed again.
Americans...you have become the laughing stock of the world. Now go masturbate over your military.
ShadeHonestus
03-14-2007, 02:36
selective history without context and typical anti-american sentiment including a wank reference
What insignificant country's opinion do you represent?
There is nothing more hilarious than Americans claiming that the US have the moral highground to deny nuclear weapons to other nations. Not only the US is the only country on earth that used nuclear weapons, not only have they directly sponsored terrorism (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Turkey, East Timor, Israel etc etc), not only they increased "global terrorism" danger (7fold by what I read) by their economically driven military adventures in Iraq using false evidence (i don't want to hear the "we thought so at the time" crap) but they are trying to dictate to Iran what to do after being the ones that engineered the overthrow of its democratically elected goverment in 53. Honestly, it doesn't get any better than this. And MM, hold your breath until the time Bush in impeached. You will be the man who never breathed again.
Americans...you have become the laughing stock of the world. Now go masturbate over your military.
~:eek: shock!...horror!...outrage! oh well.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-14-2007, 02:58
There is nothing more hilarious than Americans claiming that the US have the moral highground to deny nuclear weapons to other nations. Not only the US is the only country on earth that used nuclear weapons, not only have they directly sponsored terrorism (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Turkey, East Timor, Israel etc etc), not only they increased "global terrorism" danger (7fold by what I read) by their economically driven military adventures in Iraq using false evidence (i don't want to hear the "we thought so at the time" crap) but they are trying to dictate to Iran what to do after being the ones that engineered the overthrow of its democratically elected goverment in 53. Honestly, it doesn't get any better than this. And MM, hold your breath until the time Bush in impeached. You will be the man who never breathed again.
Americans...you have become the laughing stock of the world. Now go masturbate over your military.
The style of this post makes a George W. Bush speech seem ambiguous and diplomatic. :cheesy:
I mean, come on, stop sugar coating things and tell us what you really think...:devilish:
No serious scholar of American foreign policy or use/support for the use of force would view the USA as having been "on the side of the angels" in each and every instance. Even my 3rd grade history text wasn't that sacharine.
Nevertheless, the track record of the USA compares decently with any other active world power. Consider for yourself what our world would be like had a world power like the Mongol Empire or the Aztecs been the sole possessors of atomic weaponry and delivery systems for same for a period of several years. What if the Cold War had ended with the implosion of the USA, leaving the Soviets as the ascendent sole superpower?
We're a long chalk from perfect, but the world could have fared far worse.
Marshal Murat
03-14-2007, 03:08
I'm not saying he will or won't. If there is enough sentiment.
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
This is VERY open to interpretation.
To topic...
I think the nuke is like a catapult. You have a catapult. If your neighbor builds a catapult, you either...
A)Assault your neighbor, take his catapult, and then wait for him to build another one.
B)Subvert your neighbor by turning his sons against him, destabilize your neighbors house, then have the sons murder each other in turn, so you end up with the infant and a catapult it can't possibly load.
C)Become very good friends with said neighbor, and do nothing about the catapult.
D)Have your neighbor sign a treaty that ensures he won't share catapults with anyone else, and if someone else builds a catapult, you force him to sign the treaty.
Now, while any of the above events might occur, you still have a catapult in your neighbor's yard. Analogies only go so far, but I think the catapult covers the basics.
You now both have catapults, and it's not going to magically disappear. What should happen is countries should be evaluated on their merits and recent conflicts, and if they are deemed stable, they should be given nuclear technology.
'2 wrongs don't make it right'.
While we have supported terrorist and insurgent groups in many countries to combat Communism, and we have used our nuclear technology. While this is so, does it make it any more right or wrong if Iran has nuclear weaponry?
Is it so appalling that people care about some things and not others? If it is, then to bad because it's part of the human condition. American Civil War is a perfect example. Not all involved wanted to 'free the slaves', they wanted to re-unite the Union. Lee, Jackson, Longstreet all hated slavery, but fought for it's continuance along with states rights.
I could say the same thing about Belgium. They killed or maimed hundreds of thousands of people in the Congo. Does that invalidate their feelings that the Holocaust was wrong? No.
Britain locked up thousands of Boers, in dysentery infected concentration camps in South Africa. What right do they have to say the Holocaust was wrong? They did the same thing to hundreds of Boer families, that while they didn't intentionally kill them, the conditions were conducive to cause widespread disease.
It's the real world, and hypocrisy has another name. REALITY.
Would you in Britain feel safe if you knew the IRA was developing nuclear technology for 'peaceful purposes'? I've no doubt that many would condemn this action from the get-go.
Your country does the same thing all the time, and while you would rather accuse the 'big American capitalist' for all your problems and his faults, be sure that your own shoes aren't also dirtied by past actions.
:stop: :book: , and then :gathering:
stop :viking:
ShadeHonestus
03-14-2007, 03:14
Britain locked up thousands of Boers, in dysentery infected concentration camps in South Africa. What right do they have to say the Holocaust was wrong? They did the same thing to hundreds of Boer families, that while they didn't intentionally kill them, the conditions were conducive to cause widespread disease.
Don't forget the British tendency to periodically purge their own Jews..."just go out there in the tidal flat and wait for the boats who will be here shortly"...honest.
If we have to judge hypocrisy we have to judge it in history and everything in ------> that hemisphere has a much longer rap sheet and a failure to learn from it.
However, thats too easy and I'd like to see this topic develop but I think its not going to evolve past the bashing...
Marshal Murat
03-14-2007, 03:23
Someone lock this please...
It's going to be an internet Ragnarnok soon.
:gathering: :hmg:
ShadeHonestus
03-14-2007, 03:29
lol@internet Ragnarnok
:dancinglock: "peanut butter jelly time"
gunslinger
03-14-2007, 03:32
If I'm correctly interpreting the overall theme of this thread, the vast majority of posters believe that Iran's possession of the bomb would be a bad thing for the entire world.
On the other hand, many of those same posters are disgusted that the U.S. is up to its old tricks; telling the rest of the world (Iran in this case) what to do and how to behave.
In this case, I think that this forum makes for a good microcosm of the real world. The vast majority of the world community has made it known through U.N. resolutions that they don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. However, they steadfastly refuse to put any "teeth" in their resolutions.
The U.S. enters diplomatic negotiations with Iran to try to resolve the issue. The other countries of the world, who stated publicly that they agree with the U.S. position on the issue, sit around and moan about the fact that the U.S. is trying to do something about it.
Iran told the world that it was going to make nukes, and the world knew that it was only a matter of a couple years before Iran would have nukes. Why didn't Germany, France, Russia, Belgium, Australia, Great Britain, or any other nation then go face off with Iran? In fact, why didn't the whole EU go enter into negotiations with Iran? (These questions are not rhetorical. I would really like an intelligent answer from someone as long as it doesn't just call everyone besides the U.S. "insignificant wimps" or something like that).
I don't make public policy for the U.S., but I'd bet my next paycheck that they would have gladly taken a back seat for this one and let some other nation or group of nations face down Iran on this issue.
CrossLOPER
03-14-2007, 03:53
I know I said I hate abuses of the quote function, but why not just this once?
Time was not the measure, quantification was.
:smash:
Who said it was acceptable? Thats for another thread which I'm sure has been discussed here already and to every end by every armchair historian.
Fair enough.
I did not produce a handful of statistics, I pointed a out a few of the nations that lost the most civilians, none of which were on the receiving end of the Bomb. I then showed the total...notice the word "total" estimated civilian casaulties for the war. ...and this part appears to contradict what you were trying to suggest in quote #1.
If you take offense to proper perspective then you have a problem with reality, not my stating the facts to show the destructive power of conventional weapons in the absence of nuclear weapons.
I'm saying there is a reason why most people in the world wanted to avoid using nuclear weapons.
Or maybe you're just taking the first opportunity to hijack this into a "bad america for using the bomb" thread. Which is most likely the case from what you wrote below.
Oh dear God, please don't start this 2005 :daisy: again.
Why didn't the japanese stab dummies instead of tossing Chinese babies on their bayonets like a macabre game of ring toss at the Nanking Invitational.
Oh here's some more perspective you'll hate including some from my above post:
7 million Chinese civilians dead (at the hands of who? the tooth fairy?)
3 million Chinese military dead
--------------------------------------
70% of all casaulties were civilian
600,000 Japanese civilians dead
2,000,000 Japanese military dead
--------------------------------------
24% of all casualties were civilian
...things that make you go hmmmm
So it's OK to use nuclear weapons... if the military of the country whose civilians you are bombing did what your moral meter said was "too much"?
No doubt the power of the Atom in the hands of the Japanese would have been revered more and never unleashed upon those Chinese they respected.
Are you having your own argument or something?
I do not wish to see this thread go the way of :dancinglock: "peanut butter jelly time"
....Too bad?
CrossLOPER
03-14-2007, 04:01
Germany, France, Russia, Belgium, Australia, Great Britain, or any other nation then go face off with Iran? In fact, why didn't the whole EU go enter into negotiations with Iran? (These questions are not rhetorical. I would really like an intelligent answer from someone as long as it doesn't just call everyone besides the U.S. "insignificant wimps" or something like that).
Germany- Didn't care.
France- Probably didn't care.
Russia- Too busy building reactors and supplying advanced ak-ak.
Beligium- lol
Australia- Too busy making fun of Obama/hating leader/hating Bush/dealing with radical clerics calling non-Moslem women slutty.
Great Britain- Too busy doing a lot of things.
EU- Too busy trying to decide whether or not what Turkey "probably" did was "that bad".
ShadeHonestus
03-14-2007, 04:05
So it's OK to use nuclear weapons... if the military of the country whose civilians you are bombing did what your moral meter said was "too much"?
Is your moral meter so high that no sacrifice of human life no matter how great, at the hands of anyone, would allow for its use?
I guess its okay if we tell our troops in Iraq to personally murder 300,000 civilians in one city, as the Japanese did at Nanking, but as long as we don't kill 200,000 with two nukes, we're morally hip.
Are you having your own argument or something?
/sarcasm
Cataphract_Of_The_City
03-14-2007, 04:05
What insignificant country's opinion do you represent?
One of the many in which the US supported a junta. Good enough for you?
And my post is as true as it can get. You can try, but you know you will fail refuting it.
Marshal Murat
03-14-2007, 04:08
Gosh darn it, you know America has no problems so we can solve yours!
Nothing like Iran in the morning to make you forget that we have...
1)Economic deficit
2)Rising Oil Prices
3)Crazy Chavez in Venezuela
4)Illegal immigrants crossing the border
5)Inflation and lowering value of the dollar
6)The Poor
7)Whatever else decides to pester the USA.
No, we try to prevent further spread of nuclear armaments to, but we get criticized for that. Trying to prevent some radical terrorists from possibly gaining access to them. No we don't have problems of our own that we can't solve, so while we try to help you solve yours before you get the thumbs out of your keister, we get harassed for doing so.
Your welcome world.
Catapract, we have the moral high ground because no one else has the guts to take on the issue. If there is another nation that wants to prevent Iran from gaining access to nuclear technology, be my guest and take the stand. Until then, we are one of the few nations that care enough about the rest of you to even try to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
ShadeHonestus
03-14-2007, 04:12
No, we try to prevent further spread of nuclear armaments to, but we get criticized for that.
C'mon, get morally hip like Germany and not care or selectively wounded by a junta by the anonymous country below.
Lord Winter
03-14-2007, 04:22
Thank you MM at least someone is showing sense here.
I don't understand the logic of many of the U.S. bashers, why cant the U.S. speek out against the spread of nuclear weapons? They are the only thing we know of with the power to wipe out a city and many also say wipe out all of humen life.
The argument of Iran, or any other counrty, will never use them because of M.A.D. is rediclous. If you look back through history their is plenty of examples of despotic rulers turning to a, if we're going to go down we might as well give them a wasteland to rule over. Stalin is but one example of this maintlyity that has so tragicly occured throughout history. Even if we don't have a sucidal Jihadist (which is questionable) ruling Iran right now what if we get one latter with no regards for who gets hurt as long as they achive there goals? All that nucluar wepons dose is give nations a new and much more effective way to turn the conquers overwhleming victory to the most extreme example of a pyphric victory the world has ever seen.
Devastatin Dave
03-14-2007, 04:29
To any of my fellow lefties who are even hinting that Iran should be allowed to have nukes:
Are you people out of your freaking minds?
This is Iran we are talking about, folks, not Switzerland or Belgium.
Give your heads a long hard shake.
Jeez...
:no:
Are you OK Goofy, you're making a little too much sense. I'm scared....
Samurai Waki
03-14-2007, 04:39
I'd rather see fifty thousand of them die over nukes, than fifty thousand of my own with nukes.
Pannonian
03-14-2007, 04:40
Iran told the world that it was going to make nukes, and the world knew that it was only a matter of a couple years before Iran would have nukes.
Actually, around 10 at the soonest, according to experts on the subject.
Why didn't Germany, France, Russia, Belgium, Australia, Great Britain, or any other nation then go face off with Iran? In fact, why didn't the whole EU go enter into negotiations with Iran? (These questions are not rhetorical. I would really like an intelligent answer from someone as long as it doesn't just call everyone besides the U.S. "insignificant wimps" or something like that).
Simple. We don't have what they want, and we don't have the clout to give them what they want, which is security against the US. Various EU initiatives have foundered on the Iranian demand that there be a guarantee that it will not be attacked by the US, and the US refusal to give this guarantee. We haven't been the ones threatening them, we're not going to be the ones affected if they do get them. They're not stupid enough to use them, the only thing an Iranian nuke will result in is the loss of the stick as a bargaining tool with them, something we're not inclined to use anyway.
Here's a thought. Since Iran's desire for safety against US attack and the US refusal to allow that are directly opposed to each other, how about a proposal that will remove the need for an Iranian nuke, guarantee it safety against the US, and yet not require any promises from the US? How about persuading Iran to seek the cover of the Russian nuclear umbrella, meaning Russia will go to war with anyone who attacks it? No need for an Iranian nuke then, the US won't dare to attack them if it means immediate war with the other nuclear superpower, yet the US doesn't need to make face-losing promises. Would this be more satisfactory to everyone, to return to the comforting certainties of the Cold War, the knowledge that sensible statesmanship will prevail because anything else guarantees the destruction of the world?
For ShadeHonestus - thank goodness Blair won't be able to throw us into another American adventure in his remaining months (weeks?) in power. Dannatt made the point that our overstretched military will either have to increase funding, or cut commitments. Mad Tony thought he could do it the other way round, increase commitments at the same time as cutting funds.
ShadeHonestus
03-14-2007, 04:56
Simple. We don't have what they want, and we don't have the clout to give them what they want, which is security against the US. Various EU initiatives have foundered on the Iranian demand that there be a guarantee that it will not be attacked by the US, and the US refusal to give this guarantee. We haven't been the ones threatening them, we're not going to be the ones affected if they do get them. They're not stupid enough to use them, the only thing an Iranian nuke will result in is the loss of the stick as a bargaining tool with them, something we're not inclined to use anyway.
Yes, lets give a country immunity with the only caveat that they cease nuclear development. That'll work for everyone....oh wait. Brilliant.
I still think we should turtle, thats what you want, right? Guarantee Israeli vulnerability and let you feel important again? Lost empire still under your skin? We should wash our hands of the rest of the world and turtle, plain and simple. Of course I'm sure we'll catch flak for that in hindsight by the stone throwers across the pond. It's almost ironic that our adventure in Iraq replaced a dictator who's Baathist Party evolved from the Nazi ideals embraced by its members in an appeal to Hitler to counter a British puppet.
gunslinger
03-14-2007, 05:06
Thank you, Pannonian. Your answer was well put. However, it still doesn't explain why the European world is willing to support U.N. resolutions against Iranian nuclear proliferation, but unwilling to enforce them.
Arguing that Iran wants to prevent a U.S. attack makes much more sense than saying they are trying to prevent an Israeli attack.
As for the Iranians, if their goal is to prevent a U.S. attack, then providing arms and safe haven to insurgents in Iraq and threatening genocide against a U.S. ally while announcing that they are starting a nuclear program doesn't seem like the wisest move they could make.
Alright, well if a demonstration was in order, why wasn't the weapon detonated outside a city?
Well, what would be more shocking and moral destroying. A demonstration of a nuclear weapon or it being used on a city? I doubt a demonstration would have worked. After all, it took two to get Japan to surrender..
Banquo's Ghost
03-14-2007, 08:15
What a thread to wake up to and read over breakfast. :stunned:
My warning button is tired, and after due reflection, so is the thread. It will take a nap, and if someone feels sufficiently passionate that it should be re-opened, I will consider PM requests.
For future reference, bashing any country with insulting generalisations brings a moderator's finger towards his own red button. Best not to do it in the interests of world peace.
:closed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.