Did you read Broomstick's post?
Yes. I've snipped out the rest because it was pretty bad rambling without a point. My specific response was to her hand-wriging over aggressive nations, which hilariously left out the most aggressive nation of today.
The US has had a nuclear arsenal for a long time, and has not
used it to wage wars of aggression. The wars go on- if you think you can find an era that's abolished war you're dreaming- but If you're worried about nuclear weapons being used for aggression and conquest, or by rogue factions within a government, the US doesn't do it. Other wars go on- we can point to American actions, including violent actions, that have caused massive suffering, just as we can for Russia or China. Being a nuclear power does not confer moral status.*snip irrelevant rest*
Excuse me? Have you read her post? It was listing stuff according to nations being aggressive. your whole response does not only miss the point, it is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
The operative question is whether all governments can match the track record. I am not so sure of this. Iran is close enough to the wrong side of the line to make me nervous. Is that hypocritical? Is it hypocritical for me to think Iran's nuclear forces won't be as coup-proof and organized as those of Russia and China? Or to worry that if they turn out not to be, they might manage to kill as many people in an hour as the American war in Iraq killed in a decade? Twice as many? Ten times more? That is well within the power of a nuclear state, if something goes wrong.
Yes, why do you assume automatic incompetency? Iran is running very competent security forces after all who cracked down on insurgencies that would have toppled lesser regimes and who are currently running a very efficient counter-espionage program against the US and Israel trying to stop them. In case of a coup, I would guess the people who would be most worried about getting nuked are those on the losing side of the civil war. In any case, nuclear nations have had coups (Russia for one) and guess what, nothing happened.
Oh, and stop the "I am just a bleeding heart american worrying about those poor Iranies, while I am also arguing with a straight face that we cannot trust those bastards to not nuke themselves or anybody else. Because they are radical muslims, that is why" act.
BTW, Pakistan is a deal more unstable than Iran. How many nukes have they launched during the recent coup?
Here's a hypothetical for you. Suppose the US suddenly vanished off the face of the Earth. Just *poof,* gone, transported off to Never-Neverland, replaced by big open stretches of seawater. Heck, let's say Israel disappears too.
Suddenly, what you consider the two worst things in world geopolitics are gone.
I love how you immediately make the leap from "Thanas is somebody who critizes the US for aggressive actions" to "THANAS THINKS THE USA AND ISRAEL ARE THE WORST." GTFO. For the record, I would argue that the USA falls pretty much into the middle tier of nations as far as atrocities and selling arms are. Definitely the worst of all democracies though, given it has directly or indirectly killed millions.
Also, I love how your only attempt at an intelligent response is "hey, lets just remove the most important players."
How would you revise your worldview?
Would the Iranian nuclear program still seem like a good thing?
Another Simon_Leaper. Do I really need to explain that I don't think nations getting nukes is a good thing? How about you go any further in assembling facts not in evidence? Do I also have to state that I do not molest goats?
Maybe you could grow a brain and realize that condemning aggressive actions by one state =/= thinking that state is all perfume and roses, yes?
Would you turn your mockery on, say, a Russian who thought it was a bad thing for Iran to have nukes, because of the horrible things Russia does in Chechnya, and their total lack of real democratic government? Would nuclear proliferation still seem like such a good deal in a world where you couldn't kid yourself into thinking the US was about to launch another huge war?
If only all Americans and American politicians had a single voice, so that you could debate the ones you disagree with all the time, instead of having to deal with only the ones who are actually present in the room...
Oh, wait. You do that already.
You know, Simon_Leaper, I don't think you really get to crow about who assumes what in this thread.
If your argument is with Obama, kindly take it up with someone who's defending him. If your argument is with the idea of bombing Iran, kindly take it up with a country that's actually stated the intention to do that
, instead of the US. If your argument is with encouraging Israel to bomb Iran, take it up with a country that's doing that, instead of with the US, which is doing the opposite
and telling them NOT to do it.
In other words, take your goddamn strawman and burn it. Or go troll some forum full of neocons, where you might find someone who actually believes
the things you want to argue with.
So wait, you do not actually believe Iran getting nukes has the potential to burn down the Middle east and destabilize it? You don't think Israel bombing Iran is understandable? You don't think the US has a right to demonize Iran for "aggressive actions"?
Israel is, if we are to be honest about political problems, the one who the missiles are going to be pointed at. What "honest approach to a political problem" would get them around that?
I mean, are they supposed to be happy about this nuclear program belonging to someone who tolerates, from the head of their executive government, rhetoric demanding that Israel cease to exist? Is it somehow dishonest for them to consider this a bad thing, and potentially a dangerous thing that they might seriously consider fighting to avoid?
It may be aggressive, belligerent, stupid, but is it really dishonest?
Call it aggressive, belligerent, stupid, or dishonest. I don't really care.
What 'honest approach' do you want from them? What would placate the Iranians to the extent that Israel would no longer have a logical reason to worry about Iran's intentions?´
Israel will always have to worry about the intentions of its neighbours. It is a small country which is seriously weakened by oppressing half of its population and which could not even conquer the half of Lebanon. But guess what, I know what action is not going to end that situation - continuing with treating the sovereign nations around it as if they would have to make sure Israel's wishes for security are fulfilled. Israel is rightfully worried about its security here but it is not taking any steps to provide for detente. None at all.
That does not mean bombing the Iranians and spending the better part of the last three years foaming about the evil Iranians is in any way productive here. At the very worst, if Iran decides to go crazy and nuke Israel there will be MAD. At the very worst, the situation will be like it was between the USA and USSR - two nations that hated each other, but could not do anything about it.
Let's assume the Israelis are the very minions of Satan. If you want, condemn them for a million words, each more damning than the last. But when the smoke clears, what do they do next? Without creating any illusions about Iran, how is Israel to convince Iran not to take steps that would put them in greater danger? If Israel suddenly saw the light and became a beacon of good faith, human rights, and antimilitarism, would it actually stop Iran at this point?
I don't know, Simon_Leaper. But assume your ridiculous hypothesis was in any way true - if Israel had seen "the light" (:roll:) and been a friendly nation to Iran and without a history of military violence, wouldn't you agree Iran would have far less reason to worry about Israel? If the US had a stated policy of non-aggression and non-intervention in Iran's neighbour states and never funded a war against them or terrorists inside their country, do you think Iran would be as worried about the US as they are now? What was the driving force to get this - was it Iranian fear that they (as axis of evil) would be next after Iraq? Were it the war plans and open warmongering by half the US population (bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-Iran).
If Iranian politicians call the US an aggressive devil, they are not to be trusted with nukes. If McCain plays that godawful song, no doubt about the US nuking its neighbours is even raised.
So... because someone else ten years ago said someone who didn't have a nuclear program might give nuclear material to someone they have no connection to, I am now out of line to worry that someone who does have a nuclear program might give nuclear material to someone they do have a connection to?
Yes, you are. Nation states have never supplied WMDs to terrorist organizations. Because they know these things, if used, will be tracked and result in nuclear war. Go on. Point out one terrorist organization that was supplied one iota of WMDs by a nuclear or WMD-possessing power. Name one. While you are at it, name the political goals Iran would accomplish by doing that.
Nation states only sell WMDs to other nation states. Not to terrorist organizations.
I mean, I'd understand your position if it were George Bush you were talking to. But you seem to regard any expression of these opinions by any American as invalid- hypocrisy by association. I live in the same country as them, and my fellow citizens have allowed them to hold power, so I must agree with them. And if I express any opinion that anything else going on in the world is bad, then it becomes an opportunity to unroll the litany of American crimes.
You too allowed them to hold power and you are the one who is sooooo worried about iran getting a bomb. What I am getting at is that you are probably quite okay with the US and Israel taking steps to prevent Iran getting the bomb.
I wonder, do you think all Russians are Putinists, or that all Iranians really think theocracy is the best of all possible governments?
I do think the vast majority of Russians probably support Putin because they are brainwashed and do not know any better. Same holds for the Iranians. What is your point here?