Are we going to WAR with Iran now too?

[Leonis]

Originally posted by Iron Greasel: All this talk about nukes makes me want to play Civilization again. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

I just have this insatiable desire to blow up a few lemmings...

[robertthebard]

Actually, the US has had nuclear weapons since WW II, and we've only used them the one time against Japan, which is a rather dubious distinction, at best. The aftershock, world wide, from that is what caused the Non Proliferation Treaty. Which meant, nobody else was supposed to develop nuclear weapons. There is a link to it in this discussion, along with a list of the countries that signed it. Iran is one of the countries that signed the agreement. If they are developing nuclear weapons, which I believe they may be, they are in violation of that treaty, knowingly. This, along with what they might do with them is the issue.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by robertthebard: Actually, the US has had nuclear weapons since WW II, and we've only used them the one time against Japan,

Whoah, horsie, you sure about that?

[robertthebard]

In so far as I know, that's the only time bombs like that have been used.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: Iran:

Cease fire about the state of the Iranian military, please. Some people DO NOT NEED TO KNOW this!
Others will argue you blue to the face about it, but this info does not need to be reposted. It needs to remain covert.

[ 02-13-2007, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Felix The Assassin ]

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Callum: But the US is the main part of the UN invasion force is it not? So basically, we think that President Bush will use the nukes for better use than President Ahmadinejad? Or the US Government is more responsible than the Irani Government? OK. Seems to me the UN would do well to get rid of the nukes it knows about, not those it suspects might be made.

Within the treaty the United States took the stand of peace through superior firepower. It is the policy of the United States to remain a nuclear power, and was signed into treaty. Along with that, the United States also took the initiative that the policy of the US would be to strike first, and retaliate in like means.

Some people are not pleased with that. What it really means is: The United States reserves the right to place a nuclear strike onto a target first, and would only strike with chemical or biological munitions within like means.

Within the disarmament treaties with other World powers we have publicly de-milled weapons of mass destruction at the rate of which we signed on the disarming policy. It is our duty, and policy to maintain this treaty. As one of the hammers of the UN gable, we must enforce the nuclear treaty.

I cannot give specifics, but it is not hard to search the internet for the destruction of US chemical weapons at the _________ chemical plant.

Additionally within the treaty we have de-milled all of our older nukes, and only retain the newer shinier models.

If you really must know, the only time The President has single control over the nuclear arsenal is when he is aboard Air Force 1, it is above an altitude of xx,xxx feet, the two secret members of congress have both conducted their sequence of button pushing, AND, the CMDR ____________ has turned the activation switch, which is located in the base of a mountain (that is, believe it or not, Not located in the United States). Then, and only then, does he have single control. Until that point, it is a three phase sequence!

The treaty is what dictates the remaining nations about nuclear power.

[Knightscape]

Originally posted by PurpleXVI: What radical imams are you talking about, man? The first quote is from a professor in Michigan and the other is from MEMRI, an institute located in Washington DC. Information on MEMRI that may interest you: MEMRI was founded in 1998 by its president Yigal Carmon, a retired colonel from Israeli military intelligence, and the academic Dr. Meyrav Wurmser.Sounds like a guy who'll just LOVE the Arabs, doesn't he?

...and Juan Cole : Cole is a strong critic of Israel's foreign and military policy and its treatment of Palestinians. He criticizes the nature of America's support for Israel, the activities of the Israel lobby and claims that some senior US officials such as Doug Feith have dual loyalties to America and the Israeli Likud Party.

Sounds like a guy who'll just LOVE the Israeli's, doesn't he?


Two very different bias's.
I posted them both so that they could be seen in juxtaposition, and also in the hope that they could be viewed in a more open-minded manner.

[Leonis]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: **snip** and we all can get back to worrying about Korea.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/as....ap/index.html

Interesting... While it certainly doesn't mean anyone can stop worrying, it's good to see diplomacy apparently making some ground (As opposed to the "Shock & Parking Lot" solution some are touting). I heard on local news (Channel 10, Sydney, Australia) talk of them being removed from the "Axis of Evil that supports terrorism" as the above article mentions too.

They of course have backflipped before and could do so again, so it remains to be seen. Could be positive though. Interesting comment about how Iran might see it though... Their reaction will be one to watch.

Here's an intersting article in relation to the whole debate:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/me...ran/index.html

[robertthebard]

From the first of Leonis' articles: Nevertheless, the agreement marks a turnabout for North Korea, which rattled the world only four months ago when it tested a nuclear device. If Pyongyang follows through with its promises, they would be the first moves the communist state has made to scale back its atomic development since it kicked out international inspectors and restarted its sole operating nuclear reactor in 2003.

Interesting tidbit there, with one operating reactor, in 2003, N Korea tested a nuclear device 4 months ago. Shoots down the claims that there was no way that Iran could do the same, doesn't it? I'm not going to pretend I know what they are doing, but I won't ignore what they could be doing. Especially when the evidence is blaringly clear that they could already have at least one nuclear device.

Interesting snippet from one of Micah's articles: On 25 April 2006 Tehran's top nuclear negotiator said Iran will cut off its relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency if the UN Security Council imposes sanctions against it. "If sanctions are imposed on Iran, then we will suspend our relations with the IAEA," said Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council said. Larijani also said that Iran would stop acting in a transparent manner over its nuclear programs if it is attacked. "If the USA attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, we will stop acting transparently in the nuclear field and continue covert nuclear work at other facilities," he said.

I'm not sure what this means, as it could be taken two ways, but one of those ways is to read what he said, "...continue covert nuclear work at other facilities". Literal translations are sometimes the best.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by Felix The Assassin: quote: Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: Iran:

Cease fire about the state of the Iranian military, please. Some people DO NOT NEED TO KNOW this!
Others will argue you blue to the face about it, but this info does not need to be reposted. It needs to remain covert. [/QUOTE]It can't be THAT covert if it took me all of 2 minutes to find the information on a simple google search. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Now, if you REALLY meant to say the "some people will not bother to listen to this", then I simply refer you back to TL's previous post about "truthiness".

[ 02-14-2007, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Micah Foehammer ]