|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 24, 2013 18:27:55 GMT
As just about everyone should be aware by now, a deal has been reached as regarding Iran's nascent nuclear program. And it appears to be something of a Rorschach test: Iran asserts that it allows it to continue enriching uranium, whereas the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, denies that this is the case.
But let us be candid here: Whether this deal was wise or unwise is entirely predicated upon this one, simple question: Should our foremost concern be (a) the prevention of war with Iran; or (b) our ensuring that it will be impossible for Iran to ever acquire nuclear weapons, regardless of what might be required to achieve that goal?
If one responds that the correct answer is (a), then it stands to reason that one must believe that any deal--including the one eventually agreed to--beats no deal at all.
If one responds that (b) is the correct answer, on the other hand, any deal that allows Iran to enrich uranium at all--and therefore, to have a "breakout" capability within a very short time--is ill-advised.
I will go with (b)...
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Nov 25, 2013 17:01:57 GMT
Our first concern should be that at least one Middle-East State should be capable of stopping the 'Israeli' Nazis from colonising the whole region and murdering millions. This is just another Munich, alas, brought about by the usual Yank bullying, and the naivety of Iranian democrats.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Nov 26, 2013 13:28:21 GMT
That's right the "jews' are murdering "millions".
When Iran does complete the construction of their first nuclear bomb I believe Obama and Kerry ought to be tried for treason.
The Mullahs are 'playing' Obama and Kerry. Two of the most limp wristed men in US history.
The Iranians know when Obama takes a leak. They knew what **** Obama had once again got himself into at home and they knew this was a perfect moment to pretend to want to negotiate.
This 'deal' is a joke.
Anyway Israel and the KSA will very soon now destroy Iran's nuclear bomb making facilities and in response Obama and 'the pickle lady's lap poodle' will say: "But Iran promised us they would tell the truth this time mommy".
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Nov 26, 2013 13:57:44 GMT
That's right the "jews' are murdering "millions". When Iran does complete the construction of their first nuclear bomb I believe Obama and Kerry ought to be tried for treason. The Mullahs are 'playing' Obama and Kerry. Two of the most limp wristed men in US history. The Iranians know when Obama takes a leak. They knew what **** Obama had once again got himself into at home and they knew this was a perfect moment to pretend to want to negotiate. This 'deal' is a joke. Anyway Israel and the KSA will very soon now destroy Iran's nuclear bomb making facilities and in response Obama and 'the pickle lady's lap poodle' will say: "But Iran promised us they would tell the truth this time mommy". No they aren't up to it, which is why they need you lot for serfs. Haven't your forelocks come out yet, oh ye Free? Jesus wept! |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 26, 2013 15:14:43 GMT
Should our foremost concern be (a) the prevention of war with Iran; or (b) our ensuring that it will be impossible for Iran to ever acquire nuclear weapons, regardless of what might be required to achieve that goal?I will go with (b)...
In this regard there is a much larger problem that needs to be addressed and that is the enforcement of the NPT provisions on all nations regardless of whether those nations are a treaty member of the NPT or not.
First and foremost in accomplishing that is for the United Nations Security Council to address all of the rogue nuclear weapon nations that possess nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT. It's time to stop playing politics with nuclear weapons and those nations (N Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel) need to be forced to dismantle their nuclear weapons like S Africa was forced to do so in the past.
The UNSC is dealing with N Korea but has failed to address one problem with what's being done relative to N Korea. The United States, which is an authorized nuclear weapon nations, has it's military on the border of N Korea and that represents a nuclear weapon threat against the sovereign nation of N Korea. Before a nation can be "disarmed" of their nuclear weapons logically they can't be facing an imminent threat of nuclear attack. The US needs to withdraw it's military from S Korea to remove the imminent threat of a nuclear attack from N Korea (we don't need to be there anyway as we could launch nuclear weapons from the US if it were ever required).
India and Pakistan need to mutually dismantle their nuclear weapons at the same time as they represent a nuclear threat to each other.
Israel isn't facing a current nuclear threat (nor has it ever faced that threat) and there is no rationalization for Israel to ever possess nuclear weapons. The fact that Israel does have nuclear weapons does represent a nuclear threat against it's neighbors and it is imperative that Israel dismantle it's nuclear weapons to remove that threat from the Middle East so this needs to be a very high priority for the United Nations Security Council to address.
In stopping the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons Iran certainly stands at the forefront although the IAEA states that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon at this time nor is it believed that Iran has the hardware necessary to enrich uranium to the 90% level required for a nuclear weapon at this time. It takes different hardware to enrich uranium to 'weapons grade' from the equipment necessary to enrich it to 20% that can be used for peaceful purposes. But it isn't all that hard to build the required equipment to enrich uranium from 20% to 90% and that is a serious concern for the IAEA and the United Nations Security Council.
The current agreement with Iran is a short term agreement that will need to be built upon in the future but it is a good agreement to begin with. Addressing the potential nuclear attack threat of Iran by Israel is also of viry high importance to address as well. The United Nations Security Council can only effectively address non-proliferation of nuclear weapons by ensuring that no nation is threated by a nuclear weapon attack. If a nation faces a potential nuclear weapon attack then they can rationalize the need to produce a nuclear weapon as a deterrent or defense against such an attack.
Witness history where the US and former USSR built huge nuclear weapons stockpiles based upon the "potential threat" of nuclear attack and we know that only be eliminating the threat can a nation be expected to give up producing them. Can we expect anything else from Iran so long as Israel represents a nuclear threat of war against it?
Finally, of course, is the continuing of the dismantling of the nuclear weapons possessed by the five authorized nuclear weapon nations. There was never any logic to having nuclear weapons stockpiles that were capable of destroying virtually all large species on Earth 400-times over. The "big five" should only retain enough nuclear weapons to ensure a retaliatory nuclear strike against any nation that secretly develops and uses a nuclear weapon in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by niff on Nov 27, 2013 12:07:40 GMT
As I and many others predicted Iran is once again 'playing; the 'West'. They got what they wanted again.
While Obama and Kerry attempted to deflect attention from yet another one of Obama's incompetent fiascos AKA Obamacare by pretending to the American people that, being the 'charismatic' 'man of History', Obama could accomplish what no American President has be able/willing to do ie "bring Iran to the negotiating table". The Iranians of course continue to work 24/7 towards a nuclear bomb intended to black mail it's neighbors.
"But the Iranians have just agreed to a six month halt." Wrong Rev. Al. 'We got you!'.
Not as far as the Mullahs are concerned. Now, as predicted the Mullahs will drag out the "wording" of the agreement for as long as it takes to complete the bomb building.
"We have an agreement which Obama and Kerry signed and as long as that is 'on the table' no IAEA inspectors will be allowed to enter any of our facilities. It may take many months (until Obama's term runs out) before both sides can agree on the 'agreement. Mean while if you don't mind we have work to do".
The Mullahs have been giving an extra prayer of thanks since the day the 'OJ jury' elected an 'Affirmative Action' President.http://freebeacon.com/iran-white-house-lying-about-details-of-nuke-deal/
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 27, 2013 15:03:39 GMT
Should our foremost concern be (a) the prevention of war with Iran; or (b) our ensuring that it will be impossible for Iran to ever acquire nuclear weapons, regardless of what might be required to achieve that goal?I will go with (b)...
In this regard there is a much larger problem that needs to be addressed and that is the enforcement of the NPT provisions on all nations regardless of whether those nations are a treaty member of the NPT or not.
First and foremost in accomplishing that is for the United Nations Security Council to address all of the rogue nuclear weapon nations that possess nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT. It's time to stop playing politics with nuclear weapons and those nations (N Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel) need to be forced to dismantle their nuclear weapons like S Africa was forced to do so in the past.
The UNSC is dealing with N Korea but has failed to address one problem with what's being done relative to N Korea. The United States, which is an authorized nuclear weapon nations, has it's military on the border of N Korea and that represents a nuclear weapon threat against the sovereign nation of N Korea. Before a nation can be "disarmed" of their nuclear weapons logically they can't be facing an imminent threat of nuclear attack. The US needs to withdraw it's military from S Korea to remove the imminent threat of a nuclear attack from N Korea (we don't need to be there anyway as we could launch nuclear weapons from the US if it were ever required).
India and Pakistan need to mutually dismantle their nuclear weapons at the same time as they represent a nuclear threat to each other.
Israel isn't facing a current nuclear threat (nor has it ever faced that threat) and there is no rationalization for Israel to ever possess nuclear weapons. The fact that Israel does have nuclear weapons does represent a nuclear threat against it's neighbors and it is imperative that Israel dismantle it's nuclear weapons to remove that threat from the Middle East so this needs to be a very high priority for the United Nations Security Council to address.
In stopping the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons Iran certainly stands at the forefront although the IAEA states that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon at this time nor is it believed that Iran has the hardware necessary to enrich uranium to the 90% level required for a nuclear weapon at this time. It takes different hardware to enrich uranium to 'weapons grade' from the equipment necessary to enrich it to 20% that can be used for peaceful purposes. But it isn't all that hard to build the required equipment to enrich uranium from 20% to 90% and that is a serious concern for the IAEA and the United Nations Security Council.
The current agreement with Iran is a short term agreement that will need to be built upon in the future but it is a good agreement to begin with. Addressing the potential nuclear attack threat of Iran by Israel is also of viry high importance to address as well. The United Nations Security Council can only effectively address non-proliferation of nuclear weapons by ensuring that no nation is threated by a nuclear weapon attack. If a nation faces a potential nuclear weapon attack then they can rationalize the need to produce a nuclear weapon as a deterrent or defense against such an attack.
Witness history where the US and former USSR built huge nuclear weapons stockpiles based upon the "potential threat" of nuclear attack and we know that only be eliminating the threat can a nation be expected to give up producing them. Can we expect anything else from Iran so long as Israel represents a nuclear threat of war against it?
Finally, of course, is the continuing of the dismantling of the nuclear weapons possessed by the five authorized nuclear weapon nations. There was never any logic to having nuclear weapons stockpiles that were capable of destroying virtually all large species on Earth 400-times over. The "big five" should only retain enough nuclear weapons to ensure a retaliatory nuclear strike against any nation that secretly develops and uses a nuclear weapon in the future.
(1) I find it most instructive that you believe that the principle of non-proliferation should be enforced upon all nations, even if they have not signed the NPT. (By the way, what international body--the UN, perhaps?--would you propose using to enforce this matter, even upon non-signatories?) (2) India and Pakistan are most unlikely to ever rid themselves of their nuclear weapons. (3) To characterize Israel as a threat to Iran, simply because of the former's possession of nuclear weapons, is to misjudge the character of the Jewish state. Mere possession of nukes does not make any country a threat. It is only that , combined with an aggressive nature, that is threatening. The moral symmetry between Israel and Iran is very much like that which was suggested by some on the left between the US and the former Soviet Union in the 1960s and '70s, it seems to me. (4) For the US to remove its troops from the DMZ would be, effectively, to announce that it could not help defend against an attack by North Korea, short of America's escalating the conflict into a nuclear war; and very few people (including, surely, those in charge of North Korea) believe that America would be likely to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 27, 2013 18:04:38 GMT
(1) I find it most instructive that you believe that the principle of non-proliferation should be enforced upon all nations, even if they have not signed the NPT. (By the way, what international body--the UN, perhaps?--would you propose using to enforce this matter, even upon non-signatories?) (2) India and Pakistan are most unlikely to ever rid themselves of their nuclear weapons. (3) To characterize Israel as a threat to Iran, simply because of the former's possession of nuclear weapons, is to misjudge the character of the Jewish state. Mere possession of nukes does not make any country a threat. It is only that , combined with an aggressive nature, that is threatening. The moral symmetry between Israel and Iran is very much like that which was suggested by some on the left between the US and the former Soviet Union in the 1960s and '70s, it seems to me. (4) For the US to remove its troops from the DMZ would be, effectively, to announce that it could not help defend against an attack by North Korea, short of America's escalating the conflict into a nuclear war; and very few people (including, surely, those in charge of North Korea) believe that America would be likely to do that.
1. The United Nations Security Council is responsible for enforcement of the NPT regardless of whether a nation is a signatory of the NPT or not. If that were not the case then there would be no economic sanctions against North Korea today because it withdrew from the NPT in 2003. Iran could like-wise end economic sanctions against it by merely withdrawing from the NPT.
Economic sanctions are the only necessary means of enforcement over time (while also removing any potential threat of a nuclear attack against a nation).
2. It is actually mutually beneficial for both India and Pakistan to dismantle their nuclear weapons as a nuclear war between them would devastate both nations resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people. It could also be noted that economic sanctions would be very effective in forcing both nations to agree to mutually dismantle their nuclear weapons.
3. Israel has always been a nation of military aggression. It's very founding was based upon the paramilitary aggression of immigrant European (Zionist) Jews against the native population of "Palestine" under the League of Nations Mandatory (Great Britain) that ultimately resulted in a rebellion against the United Nations authority over Palestine in 1948. Since 1948 Israel has been responsible for more acts of aggression against neighboring countries than any other nation in the Middle East. It has repeatedly attacked and/or invaded Lebanon , Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Gaza in violation of the UN Charter (a treaty agreement) and violated the national sovereignty of many nations with international assassinations and kidnappings in violation of International Law. Even today Israel is threatening the unilateral use of military force against Iran in violation of Article II of the UN Charter. Excluding the United States I can think of no nation that has been more "aggressive" when it comes to the use of military force in violation of the UN Charter than Israel since WW II.
4. I've was around combat soldiers from the Republic of Korea (S Korea) in Vietnam and they certainly don't require any assistance from the United States to defend S Korea from any N Korean invasion. S Korea doesn't require any assistance from the United States in deterring an attack/invasion by N Korea.
We can also note that the United States is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in war and based upon history the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was unnecessary. Japan had been seeking a means to end WW II through diplomatic channels it had with the USSR and the United States was very much aware of the fact that it could demand almost anything and Japan would agree to the conditions. The only condition that couldn't be imposed was the complete removal of the Emperor of Japan and the United States waived that demand as a part of the "unconditional" surrender terms.
Perhaps some Americans believe that the United States would not use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack but history proves that belief is false as the United State already used nuclear weapons when it was unnecessary to do so before. If we were to elect a "Republican Hawk" like John McCain I don't know that we could be assured that they wouldn't start a nuclear war. As I've noted above the United States has become involved in more military and paramilitary wars (in violation of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter) than any other nation since WW II and I don't have the faith that a "Hawkish" American president wouldn't use nuclear weapons. If I don't believe it then why should the leaders of other nations that are threatened by the United States militarily (in violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter) believe it?
The fact is that the five authorized nuclear weapon nations alone represent a real and creditable threat of nuclear war and always will. There is a pragmatic reason for allowing limited nuclear weapons by a few nations to act as a retaliatory response to any nations that covertly produces and uses nuclear weapons but those nations still represent a real and creditable threat of nuclear war.
In fact, while a pragmatic necessity exists for a few nations to possess nuclear weapons as a deterrent, I'd impose a requirement that any nation allowed to have any nuclear weapons should also be required to be "military isolationists" where they are prohibited from any overt or covert military (or paramilitary) operations anywhere in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Nov 27, 2013 19:24:59 GMT
(1) I find it most instructive that you believe that the principle of non-proliferation should be enforced upon all nations, even if they have not signed the NPT. (By the way, what international body--the UN, perhaps?--would you propose using to enforce this matter, even upon non-signatories?) (2) India and Pakistan are most unlikely to ever rid themselves of their nuclear weapons. (3) To characterize Israel as a threat to Iran, simply because of the former's possession of nuclear weapons, is to misjudge the character of the Jewish state. Mere possession of nukes does not make any country a threat. It is only that , combined with an aggressive nature, that is threatening. The moral symmetry between Israel and Iran is very much like that which was suggested by some on the left between the US and the former Soviet Union in the 1960s and '70s, it seems to me. (4) For the US to remove its troops from the DMZ would be, effectively, to announce that it could not help defend against an attack by North Korea, short of America's escalating the conflict into a nuclear war; and very few people (including, surely, those in charge of North Korea) believe that America would be likely to do that.
1. The United Nations Security Council is responsible for enforcement of the NPT regardless of whether a nation is a signatory of the NPT or not. If that were not the case then there would be no economic sanctions against North Korea today because it withdrew from the NPT in 2003. Iran could like-wise end economic sanctions against it by merely withdrawing from the NPT.
Economic sanctions are the only necessary means of enforcement over time (while also removing any potential threat of a nuclear attack against a nation).
2. It is actually mutually beneficial for both India and Pakistan to dismantle their nuclear weapons as a nuclear war between them would devastate both nations resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people. It could also be noted that economic sanctions would be very effective in forcing both nations to agree to mutually dismantle their nuclear weapons.
3. Israel has always been a nation of military aggression. It's very founding was based upon the paramilitary aggression of immigrant European (Zionist) Jews against the native population of "Palestine" under the League of Nations Mandatory (Great Britain) that ultimately resulted in a rebellion against the United Nations authority over Palestine in 1948. Since 1948 Israel has been responsible for more acts of aggression against neighboring countries than any other nation in the Middle East. It has repeatedly attacked and/or invaded Lebanon , Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Gaza in violation of the UN Charter (a treaty agreement) and violated the national sovereignty of many nations with international assassinations and kidnappings in violation of International Law. Even today Israel is threatening the unilateral use of military force against Iran in violation of Article II of the UN Charter. Excluding the United States I can think of no nation that has been more "aggressive" when it comes to the use of military force in violation of the UN Charter than Israel since WW II.
4. I've was around combat soldiers from the Republic of Korea (S Korea) in Vietnam and they certainly don't require any assistance from the United States to defend S Korea from any N Korean invasion. S Korea doesn't require any assistance from the United States in deterring an attack/invasion by N Korea.
We can also note that the United States is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in war and based upon history the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was unnecessary. Japan had been seeking a means to end WW II through diplomatic channels it had with the USSR and the United States was very much aware of the fact that it could demand almost anything and Japan would agree to the conditions. The only condition that couldn't be imposed was the complete removal of the Emperor of Japan and the United States waived that demand as a part of the "unconditional" surrender terms.
Perhaps some Americans believe that the United States would not use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack but history proves that belief is false as the United State already used nuclear weapons when it was unnecessary to do so before. If we were to elect a "Republican Hawk" like John McCain I don't know that we could be assured that they wouldn't start a nuclear war. As I've noted above the United States has become involved in more military and paramilitary wars (in violation of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter) than any other nation since WW II and I don't have the faith that a "Hawkish" American president wouldn't use nuclear weapons. If I don't believe it then why should the leaders of other nations that are threatened by the United States militarily (in violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter) believe it?
The fact is that the five authorized nuclear weapon nations alone represent a real and creditable threat of nuclear war and always will. There is a pragmatic reason for allowing limited nuclear weapons by a few nations to act as a retaliatory response to any nations that covertly produces and uses nuclear weapons but those nations still represent a real and creditable threat of nuclear war.
In fact, while a pragmatic necessity exists for a few nations to possess nuclear weapons as a deterrent, I'd impose a requirement that any nation allowed to have any nuclear weapons should also be required to be "military isolationists" where they are prohibited from any overt or covert military (or paramilitary) operations anywhere in the world.
Wow! Your judgment that any nuclear power should be "required" to be "'military isolationists'" begs the question: Required by whom? (If you are truly a libertarian, it is difficult to imagine that you would approve of such a thing.) In any event, I simply do not believe that any sovereign nation should consider itself subordinate to some superstructure--whether that might be the United Nations, the World Court (in The Hague), or any other international body. Your repetition (from innumerable others) of the mantra that the US is "the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in war"--and your conclusion, therefore, that it might just do so again--conveniently ignores the post-WWII Western taboo against the first use of nuclear weapons. (Note: It is possible that Israel--a Western-style nation, even if not a part of the geographical West, strictly speaking--might use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's known and suspected nuclear facilities, in violation of this taboo; that is, if bunker-buster bombs were judged insufficient to the task at hand. But all the evidence since WWII suggests that the US is reticent to do anything like this.) It is simply unimaginable to me that you might suppose that South Korea "doesn't require any assistance from the United States in deterring an attack" by North Korea. That is certainly not in line with the views of any serious analyst, so far as I have ever seen. And you view that Israel "has always been a nation of military aggression," based (apparently) upon nothing more than its founding, is simply jaw-dropping. It is very much, in fact, like the progressives' view that America is all about "military aggression"... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 28, 2013 11:55:31 GMT
As a Libertarian I believe in Contract Law where parties voluntarily, without coercion, form contract agreements and that they are required to comply with the conditions of the contract under the Laws of Contract.
Membership in the United Nation based upon is a Treaty (contract) Agreement voluntarily entered into by 193 nations and each of those nations is required by "contract law" to abide by the conditions of the United Nations Charter. Israel, Iran, and the United States are all voluntary participants in a Contract (treaty) where we've mutually agreed that the United Nations Security Council has authority to issue binding Resolutions on all member nations and that the United Nations Security Council can intervene in the affairs of non-member nations under certain situations.
WE AGREED TO THAT VOLUNTARILY BY CONTRACT (TREATY)
Either we embrace and enforce contract law in all cases or contact law has no meaning in any cases.
While omitting the remaining Chapters of the United Nations Charter (contract treaty between the member nations) I will present the following that is a statement establishing the Purpose and Principles that all member nations agreed to comply with:
Do we really need to list all of the "material breaches of contract" by the United States and Israel related to these provisions of the "contract" (Treaty) that each voluntarily agreed to?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 28, 2013 12:19:38 GMT
BTW In the following quotation I found the use of the word "reticent" to be very accurate based upon it's definition.
The definition of "reticent" is:
It is very true that the United States is reluctant to talk about using nuclear weapons and is even reluctant and restrained when it comes to using nuclear weapons but nothing in this implies that the United States wouldn't use nuclear weapons if the President, acting alone based upon the War Powers Act (that I believe is unconstitutional), unilaterally ordered a nuclear attack against another nation. We have literally given the President of the United States the "nuclear weapon button" and the statutory authority to use it at any time without any oversight by Congress.
Do I trust every possible future President to not push the button? Not hardly! I believe that there are currently top political members of both the Republican Party and Democratic Party that just might just be crazy enough to press that button.
What the Hell! In looking back historically the military establishment under JFK wanted to get the US involved in a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis and only JFK's refusal to implement the recommendations of the Pentagon to invade Cuba prevented a nuclear war in 1962. We've got some pretty crazy people at the very top of our government in the United States and I would not rule out the possible use of nuclear weapons by the US in the future. I'd be a fool to believe the US would never resort to unilaterally using of nuclear weapons in war. We've been very close before and we will be again because we're constantly involved in military (and paramilitary) interventionism around the world in violation of the UN Charter. Just because we haven't used nuclear weapons since WW II is not a guarantee that we won't do so in the future.
And Israel is crazier than the US!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
