[Bryan]

Why exactly are we allowed to have a nuclear program and Iran isn't?

[bobthecockroach]

Because we're responsible and would never use our weapons in an inappropriate way... oh wait...

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Bryan

Why exactly are we allowed to have a nuclear program and Iran isn't?

Nothing more than agreement. See the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It recognizes five states as Nuclear Weapon States:

United States (9,960)
United Kingdom (200)
Russia (16,000)
People's Republic of China (130)
France (350)

[JerryLove]

We look the other way when people we like develop Nukes (India, Isreal) and stomp on people we don't like; because we exempted outselves from normal UN process (we are "permenant members" with "veto").

Essentially, the "permenant members" often use the UN as a tool to justify their positions.

Why Iran would want nukes is obvious. They don't want the US (or anyone else) to invade.

[tlj009]

We look the other way when people we like develop Nukes (India, Isreal) and stomp on people we don't like; because we exempted outselves from normal UN process (we are "permenant members" with "veto").

Essentially, the "permenant members" often use the UN as a tool to justify their positions.

Why Iran would want nukes is obvious. They don't want the US (or anyone else) to invade.

Neither Israel nor India have signed or ratified the non proliferation treaty. Iran did. Not that it matters, just thought I'd mention it.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

We look the other way when people we like develop Nukes (India, Isreal) and stomp on people we don't like; because we exempted outselves from normal UN process (we are "permenant members" with "veto").

Essentially, the "permenant members" often use the UN as a tool to justify their positions.

Why Iran would want nukes is obvious. They don't want the US (or anyone else) to invade.

Not that the UN really should have any relevance or say in this modern world. There is no reason why such a corrupt (food for oil ring a bell) and inefficient organization still exists.

Anyway Iran has clearly stated that once it has nukes it will use them to destory Israel and take them off the map. If we don't stop them, then basically we are turning our backs to very open terrorism. Also once they have nukes and a farther range for missiles, who knows which countries they will attack.

As for turning our backs on friends, thats no problem at all. Israel has helped the US substantially in technology and other things (in relation to its size). And India is a responsible nation (as we know) to not use these weapons foolishy.

[Than]

Originally Posted by normajean777

As for turning our backs on friends, thats no problem at all. Israel has helped the US substantially in technology and other things (in relation to its size).[/i]

And a lot of counter-intelligence training, too.

And India is a responsible nation (as we know) to not use these weapons foolishy.

Like testing their nukes on the Pakistani border (a country they have a large and ongoing border dispute with)?

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Not that the UN really should have any relevance or say in this modern world.

I beg to differ. I think the UN is extremely relavent on the modern world, and should have more say than they do.

First, the UN is relavent because they have the ability as an international body to impose economic sanctions and authorise military interventions without being swayed by one nation's economic or military interests. Simply put, they're a safeguard against unilateralism.

Secondly, in the modern world of the global economy, nations have to trade with other nations to survive. No one nation can economically survive on their own, so the weight of the international community refusing to trade with a given nation is crippling, and usually brings governments in line.

Thirdly, the military resources of the entire international community pooled are enough to implicate by force, if necessary, any UN resolution. But points 1, 2 and 3 are typically never used to their full potential, because certain nations block resolutions that aren't convenient to them. Such as China in regards to anything against the Sudanese government. By the time a resolution can be reached that China will sign, they've forced it to be so watered down that it's meaningless. The US does the same thing.

There is no reason why such a corrupt (food for oil ring a bell) and inefficient organization still exists.

Uh...Obviously, there IS a reason, because it DOES still exist.

As for corrupt, do you really think they're worse than the US government (Iran-Contra ring a bell)?

Anyway Iran has clearly stated that once it has nukes it will use them to destory Israel and take them off the map. If we don't stop them, then basically we are turning our backs to very open terrorism. Also once they have nukes and a farther range for missiles, who knows which countries they will attack.

I don't think they'll attack anyone with nuclear weapons. They don't have anything to gain by it, and much to lose.

And India is a responsible nation (as we know) to not use these weapons foolishy.

This is where I have to wonder how you define the word, "foolish." India and Pakistan have nearly gone to the nuclear level of war twice since 2002 over Kashmir. Starting a nuclear war over a strip of land tucked away in the mountains strikes me as being foolish.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper359

I don't think they'll attack anyone with nuclear weapons. They don't have anything to gain by it, and much to lose.

Unless we take Ahmadinejad at his word that he's eagerly awaiting for the imminent apocalypse so he can usher in the return of the Mahdi.

I don't see Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah as inherently different from the crazy Christians who "support" Israel because doing so will bring the world closer to the Rapture.

So I am not convinced that Iran is going to act rationally if they have nukes. I am not convinced they won't start nuking Israel because, what the hell, mayhem means the 12th imam is going to come out of occultation soon.

This is where I have to wonder how you define the word, "foolish." India and Pakistan have nearly gone to the nuclear level of war twice since 2002 over Kashmir. Starting a nuclear war over a strip of land tucked away in the mountains strikes me as being foolish.

But is it as foolish as the belief that Muhammad rode up into the sky on a horse with a woman's face? Or that hundreds of years ago a little boy was whisked away into "occultation," where he now awaits for the end of the world to return and lead a great army against the infidels in some epic final battle?

I feel like rational actors would not actually use nuclear weapons in a battle over Kashmir. MAD would succeed. However, I do not see how Muslims are rational actors. This is why I am more scared of Islam than the Soviets and their man-eating hamburgers.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Not that the UN really should have any relevance or say in this modern world. There is no reason why such a corrupt (food for oil ring a bell) and inefficient organization still exists.

Anyway Iran has clearly stated that once it has nukes it will use them to destory Israel and take them off the map. If we don't stop them, then basically we are turning our backs to very open terrorism. Also once they have nukes and a farther range for missiles, who knows which countries they will attack.

As for turning our backs on friends, thats no problem at all. Israel has helped the US substantially in technology and other things (in relation to its size). And India is a responsible nation (as we know) to not use these weapons foolishy.

Cite some evidence big guy. I personally don't like Ahmadinejad, don't go spouting off that he's said something that he probably didn't openly state without evidence. Also you have to remember that for the longest time they denied it was for weapons at all but rather nuclear power... Does anybody know if they've actually said it was a weapons program since then?

Also, that would be open war, not terrorism... unless war is terrorism now, then the U.S. is a terrorist nation. Ooh, how's that Mr. Bush? You're a terrorist now, and if you're gonna have a war (hrmm... terror) on terrorism then we should invade our own soil! I can't wait for the 'We Got 'Em" speech for Bush! It would be more like "Uh... well... uh... I have... uh... somebody get me some sunglasses... uh... oh yeah... me!"

Honestly, I wouldn't put it past Ahmadinejad to nuke Israel... he's proved himself unstable and is an open U.S. hater... And for those of you who have never played a strategy game or don't know war, but you help allies and cut off enemy supplies... if you cut off their supplies enough then you can force them to surrender peacefully... Iran is our enemy... They might one day use those nukes to nuke us... therefor we cut them off now... Plus, who doesn't hate Israel? I'd say of any nation, they need nukes the most because they have the most enemies...

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by AXguitar

Cite some evidence big guy. I personally don't like Ahmadinejad, don't go spouting off that he's said something that he probably didn't openly state without evidence. Also you have to remember that for the longest time they denied it was for weapons at all but rather nuclear power... Does anybody know if they've actually said it was a weapons program since then?

Also, that would be open war, not terrorism... unless war is terrorism now, then the U.S. is a terrorist nation. Ooh, how's that Mr. Bush? You're a terrorist now, and if you're gonna have a war (hrmm... terror) on terrorism then we should invade our own soil! I can't wait for the 'We Got 'Em" speech for Bush! It would be more like "Uh... well... uh... I have... uh... somebody get me some sunglasses... uh... oh yeah... me!"

Honestly, I wouldn't put it past Ahmadinejad to nuke Israel... he's proved himself unstable and is an open U.S. hater... And for those of you who have never played a strategy game or don't know war, but you help allies and cut off enemy supplies... if you cut off their supplies enough then you can force them to surrender peacefully... Iran is our enemy... They might one day use those nukes to nuke us... therefor we cut them off now... Plus, who doesn't hate Israel? I'd say of any nation, they need nukes the most because they have the most enemies...

He has actually directly said that he would like to bomb Israel and take it off the map. I don't have a source but I will try to find a few (since he has said it quite a few times).

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by normajean777

He has actually directly said that he would like to bomb Israel and take it off the map. I don't have a source but I will try to find a few (since he has said it quite a few times).

He has said "Israel should be wiped off the face of the map" but I don't believe he's ever advocated bombing Israel. It's a pretty big difference.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by normajean777

He has actually directly said that he would like to bomb Israel and take it off the map. I don't have a source but I will try to find a few (since he has said it quite a few times).

Why don't you go read Discussion 101 in Jerry's sig?

[Lightknight]

Maybe it's because Iran scares the Hell out of other countries?

[JerryLove]

I almost feel bad as there's been so much response already, but since this was to one of my quotes, and since I have some nuanced responses.

Not that the UN really should have any relevance or say in this modern world.

Who should then? Is your opposition to democracy so complete that you oppose the only democratic organization for inter-state issues?

There is no reason why such a corrupt (food for oil ring a bell) and inefficient organization still exists.

Or invading a country and destroying its infrastructure for the profit of Bectel, Haliburton, and Exxon? How about cronyism to rampant that it results in a FEMA unable to save lives when a Hurricane hits the Gulf coast because the head has no emeregency-management experience? How about when criminals go free because federal prosecutors are fired mid-case to make way for cronies to come in? Secret prisons, secret trials, imprisonment without judicial review, wiretapping, etc. Do you really want to discuss the corruption of the US or other major powers?

But if the UN is corrupt then we need look no further than the US to find out why. We are as much a part of the problem as anyone.

Anyway Iran has clearly stated that once it has nukes it will use them to destory Israel and take them off the map.

It has done no such thing.

If we don't stop them, then basically we are turning our backs to very open terrorism.

Even if I assumed your statement above, a threat to destroy an opponent in millitary aggression isn't terrorism.

Also once they have nukes and a farther range for missiles, who knows which countries they will attack.

none. Since Iseral is a nuclear power, the first attack will have destroied Iran as well.

You also fail to appriciate the difficulty in making multiple nuclear weapons. Because you have some doesn't mean you have dozens.

As for turning our backs on friends, thats no problem at all. Israel has helped the US substantially in technology and other things (in relation to its size).

Actually Isreal, who exsits largely on US subsidy, has stolen our technology (when we haven't given it to them) and sold it to countries we didn't want to have it (like South Africa).

And India is a responsible nation (as we know) to not use these weapons foolishy.

How do we know this? How do you know that India won't sell the technology?

How do you know what India will be like in 30 years?