If you've got nothing better to do here than blather on about how you don't read my posts and how I should be beaten in an argument before you'll... Something I have no idea what is, could you take it to PM rather than crapping up the debate thread with it? Thank you very much.

Purple, the disadvantage to editing your post, when you forget something, and finding that you can't get back to the post, and I really didn't want to double post. Bad form, and all that.

@Man; so why is it that a nation that signed a treaty, and hasn't seceeded from it, should be allowed to violate, or potentially violate, said treaty? I checked the list of signees, and Iran is on there. They haven't, as of the date that list was posted, pulled out of the treaty, and are therefore bound by it. Posting the nonproliferation treaty, and showing that Iran is on the list of nations that are bound by it doesn't say why they should be allowed to potentially continue to violate it.

Iraq was invaded only after people died in the US, already forgot about that ?

Civilian nuclear technology is permitted within the bounds of the NNPT. As long as Iran is not proven to be developing nukes, they are not in violation.

Deaths that Iraq was completely unrelated to.

Yes, those damned Iraqis who flew into the tower, damn them all.

Guys, if you're going to discuss the TREATY, then maybe you should READ IT. It allows signatories to develop peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Under that treaty, Iran is allowed to develop civilian uses for nuke tech. In order to deny them that right you must assume that they are not developing civilian nuke tech, but rather military. Now, normally I'm not happy with presuming guilt, but with Iran I'm pretty cool with it.

General comment - we've gotten to 4 pages and it's been reasonably civil for the most part. Let's keep it that way, eh? Neb and Timber, put the handbags down and get back on topic please, rather than commenting on each other's posting styles (I don't really care who started it, let's just get on with the game). As Timber said, neither of you will obviously be able to convince the other, so just post your 2c and move on. And as Neb said, maybe with the former in mind, it's best to just ignore each other in a civil fashion. Makes life easier for the rest of us (or me, at least, I'm sure the others are enjoying watching the two of you going at it over and over again). Life's too short to continually fight. Cheers fellas. Chill out, enjoy the sunshine, have a Kit Kat. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-12-2007, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

Deaths that Iraq was completely unrelated to. </font>[/QUOTE]You don't have to tell me that this war was started for the false reasons, i realize that, but since it was aimed at Saddam, i couldn't care less. The point was that you said that Americans were being killed BECAUSE of the invasion in Iraq, which is simply not true, don't try to change the subject.

Americans are being killed as of a result of the war in Iraq. They are getting blown up everyday, by explosives that are seemingly, according to the article posted earlier, coming from Iran. At least, when you intercept a shipment of explosives coming in from Iran, you can be reasonably sure you didn't catch them all.

That is only circumstantial evidence. However, if you take it in conjunction with the speeches, and the letter sent to the US by the Iranian president, it sure paints a completely different picture.

I thought I would put my own 2c in as well - personal opinions only (I haven't read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or any of that). I haven't really read the earlier posts in detail either, and will probably not respond to comments on my own opinions - this is purely "post and move on", as Timber mentioned earlier. Unless I find a particularly interesting response, or I feel that I've been misrepresented somehow. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Diplomacy has never really been Dubya's strong suit, eh.

It depends on whose perspective we're adopting here. From a US (and Western) perspective, Iran probably needs to be stopped, because once you have nuclear technology, you can either a ) use it; b ) leverage it; or c ) sell it. I doubt Iran would pursue the first option because they know that it's not a viable option in the long term - the US has many more nukes, and they would never be able to win a nuclear war. I don't think that Ahmedinejad and Ayatollah Sistani are that irrational.

The second option would be to use the nukes as political weapons to ward themselves against an Iraq-style invasion or any action of some kind, particularly against Israel. This would make them a real player in world politics, the way that countries like India and Pakistan have now become players, and the US would have to treat with them as relative equals (which the US would probably not want).

The third option is the most dangerous not only to the US, but to the rest of the world because you then need to ask yourself how reliable Iran would be in protecting the technology. Will they safeguard the technology? Or will they try and commercialise it to further their own interests, maybe by selling it to groups who are willing to pay for it? Will they even provide small-scale nuclear weaponry? Nobody really knows, and that uncertainty is what creates a lot of the fear. Remember Abdul Qadir Khan?

On the other hand, if the US does nothing, it will look weak, and that will probably encourage other states to try to gain "the nuclear option" as well. It's a no-win situation really.

I don't think anyone wants nuclear technology to proliferate - eight countries (I think) already have it, and I think that's eight too many. The question really is - is the use of military force the best way to stop Iran and achieve US goals? I don't really think so.

The backlack I suspect will not be just from Iran, or Russia, or China, but from many other countries, particularly if the US acts unilaterally and without UN approval. Unrestrained power always makes other countries uneasy, whether or not they would have done the same were they in the US's position (unless you're "tight" with the US from a political perspective, like the UK, Canada and Australia are for example - those four countries would probably politically support an airstrike, I can't think of too many others that would - maybe Japan?).

There's a lot of distrust out there because of the Iraq situation, rightly or wrongly - if Iran is then attacked that would probably increase considerably. I think that even the moderate Arab states that distrust Iran, and that would ordinarily support an airstrike on them, would view an attack negatively - because it's that whole "if you did it to them, what's to say that you won't do it to us as well" syndrome. They would probably see that as a further escalation of tensions in an already tense Middle East.

I don't think they would respond militarily as they know they can't beat the US in a conventional manner. But they would probably increase the level of support for guerilla groups to hit US interests around the place. In addition such an attack would (in my opinion) solidify Muslim support - Shia and Sunni - behind Iran. The Muslims are a fractious lot, but one thing you can say about them is that when one of them is attacked by a non-Muslim it unites the rest behind the one who was attacked.

Before Iraq - or if WMDs had been found in Iraq - this probably wouldn't have happened as much, but after Iraq I feel as though an attack on Iran would probably achieve the opposite of what Bush intended - it would make Iraq weaker militarily, but stronger politically.

I think so - but this war won't be like WW2. It would be more like what's happening in Iraq now, but on a global scale. Lots more terrorist attacks, lots more assymetric warfare involving civilians.

I think Iraq is already in a civil war, personally. I have no doubt that Iran is heavily involved in Iraq already - they're funding Shia groups to cause trouble, not just with the Americans but with the Sunnis as well. There's a tug of war in Iraq going on at the moment, because a power vacuum has been created with the removal of Hussain and his brutal regime which kept everyone in line. The Iranians are just trying to position themselves as well as they can before the inevitable US withdrawal. It's not in their interest to have Iraq descent into full-scale civil war - but they obviously believe that they can prevent that from happening (probably by using Hussain's brutal methods to "enforce a peace" among the warring factions once the US leaves).

Just my 2c...

[ 02-12-2007, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]