Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-15-2006, 06:48 AM   #1
mj
Location: livingston, scotland
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 715
Offline
Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Iran and Nukes.

Let's look at it from the Western point of view:-


Iran is breaking the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmedinajad, has publicly stated he wishes Israel to be wiped off the world map.

Iran has removed the seals from its nuclear test facilities - in violation of the Paris Treaty (2004)

Iran is run by a fundamentalist government which is reactionary. Claims are constantly made thet many terrorists are crossing the Iran/Iraq border.

Condoleeza Rice, as America's spokeswoman and Jack Straw (British counterpart), has been firm that Iran has no right to pursue nuclear weapons.

Sanctions are being proposed. And of course Bush has mentioned military intervention.

Seems simple enough.


Let's look at it from Iran's point of view:-


Iran may be, allegedly, breaking the NPT but in the Middle East area so is India, Pakistan, Israel and (a bit further away) North Korea.

Threatening Israel is the quickest way to make your country love you, in the Middle East.

Although removing the seals on its facilities is in violation of the Paris Treaty, Iran has the legal right to develop nuclear power. In fact the US signed an agreement on this.

Iran has Iraq to the West and Afghanistan to the East, both under US military control. Pakistan touches its border and the current government is allowing US operations. (Given that, the population is anti-Western)

It seems to be you are only threatened up until the point you develop nukes, after that you are left alone. North Korea being the prime (na dmost relevant) example as along with Iran and Iraq they were the 'axis of evil'.

And of course, has Iran attacked anyone? Surely Iran is now in the position where it needs nukes so it is not attacked?


Another diplomatic disaster waiting to happen. The West doesn't have the resources or the public support for another intervention, Iran has *plenty* of public support.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2006, 07:24 AM   #2
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 643
Israel
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

some simple comments:
  • Who are the nukes supposed to defend against?
    The only one who attacked Iran is Sadam Hussain. The U.S. has removed this threat. Who else is CURRENTLY threatening Iran out of the contest of it's Mass destruction weapons plans?[
  • Israel did not break the NPT, it simply never agreed to sign this treaty. Iran has signed the treaty and now, after using it to gain nuclear know-how, wishes out.
    I dont know about the status of India, North Korea or Pakistan with this regard.
  • Iran is financing and arming Hezbollah to attack Israel. Hence it's treat to attack Israel with nuclear weapons is more credible then most.


Amir
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2006, 07:50 AM   #3
mj
Location: livingston, scotland
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 715
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Right.

1 - as I said Pakistan and Israel both have nukes. America has military installations in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and so on. Iraq attacked Iran in the 80s at the behest of the West, after the overthrow of the West friendly Shah.

I seem to recall we were all selling arms to Saddam so he could attack Iran - Iran did not attack Iraq afaik.

2 Israel has illegal nukes - are you arguing that point or just being pedantic? If you're not going to contribute why bother posting?

3 You can now provide a link to prove your allegation that Iran has said it will nuke Israel.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2006, 10:43 AM   #4
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 643
Israel
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
1 - as I said Pakistan and Israel both have nukes. America has military installations in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and so on. Iraq attacked Iran in the 80s at the behest of the West, after the overthrow of the West friendly Shah.

I seem to recall we were all selling arms to Saddam so he could attack Iran - Iran did not attack Iraq afaik.
As I wrote, the only actual threat to Iran was Saddam. The US recently removed him.

Quote:
2 Israel has illegal nukes - are you arguing that point or just being pedantic? If you're not going to contribute why bother posting?
As I wrote earlier, Israel never signed the NPT. Hence, even if Israel has nukes (the Israeli governments keep trying to be unclear about this for the last 30 yrs), there is nothing that make them less legal then the U.S., Soviet or France Nukes.
Iran signed the NPT in order of receiving aid in developing a nuclear program. Now, it decided it has acquired enough know-how to build nuclear weapons, and wishes to leave the agreement. This is the "illegal action" if you wish, though I suspect if one will check, he will find there is no law that truly prohibits it.


Quote:
3 You can now provide a link to prove your allegation that Iran has said it will nuke Israel.
Since you agree with me that such links exist. I don't see any reason to bother.


Have a nice day and enjoy the practice.
Amir
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2006, 11:18 AM   #5
mj
Location: livingston, scotland
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 715
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

I started this thread for reasonable debate, but if you present anything as a fact be prepared to back it up or don't bother making it.

Frankly I have zero interest discussing Israel here unless it is directly relevant. This thread is about the current situation in Iran.

For instance, regarding your point on Israel, why is Iran getting so much pressure whereas Pakistan, India and Israel are not being threatened with sanctions? And how would the Muslim world see this?

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2006, 11:34 AM   #6
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

From my perspective, this is simply the latest dance-step, in the US flexing its muscle in the MidEast. The speech that Bolton will make when the UN Security Council does NOT vote with the US has already been written. Bolton will declare the UN obsolete, and the US will commence a bombing campaign against Iran.

All the rest of it (the threats, the "urgency" in Iran's breaking with the UN) is diplomatic posturing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2006, 02:02 PM   #7
mj
Location: livingston, scotland
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 715
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

The US has already demanded that military force remains an option, link

This was not, of course, the reaction with India, Pakistan and Israel. Thus we further alienate Muslims and enhance the view that it is one rule for the West, and another rule for them.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2006, 08:08 PM   #8
dan guthrie
Dojo: Aikido of SLO
Location: Morro Bay
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 139
United_States
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Mark Johnston wrote:
The US has already demanded that military force remains an option, link

This was not, of course, the reaction with India, Pakistan and Israel. Thus we further alienate Muslims and enhance the view that it is one rule for the West, and another rule for them.

Pakistan is emphatically Muslim so I don't quite understand your point.
I have not kept up with this as much as I should but I've been getting the impression that the Bush White House has been letting (I'm not implying that they need his permission, either) diplomacy and the EU take full responsibility for dealing with Iran's program. I have seen several prominent Neocons bemoan on teevee.

I remain hopeful that sanctions aren't going to be imposed.
Imagine what Cuba would be like if it had oil and pipelines/shipping lines to wealthy European countries. Sanctions imposed on Iran would be gossamer thin.

Also, Mark, could you provide a link to show how Iraq attacked Iran at our "behest?" I'm not being provacative. I honestly want a link. I'm going to Wikipedia so I may be back to withdraw this.

Last edited by dan guthrie : 01-15-2006 at 08:15 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2006, 11:08 AM   #9
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

I find it interesting that everyone assumes Iran's plan is to produce nuclear weapons, seeing that they claim to be conducting nuclear research to acquire a power source. I understand how one could come to this conclusion, since Iran was ranked fourth in the world for oil exports in 2004. (a google search of "top oil exporters" can lead you to the iea website.)

Why would they need nuclear power?...

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2006, 11:14 AM   #10
mj
Location: livingston, scotland
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 715
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Dan Guthrie wrote:
Also, Mark, could you provide a link to show how Iraq attacked Iran at our "behest?" I'm not being provacative. I honestly want a link. I'm going to Wikipedia so I may be back to withdraw this.
Of course. Check the part titled 'U.S.-Iraqi arms transfers in the war' in the wiki link here

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2006, 04:15 AM   #11
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 643
Israel
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Mark Johnston wrote:
I started this thread for reasonable debate, but if you present anything as a fact be prepared to back it up or don't bother making it.
Well, in this case, would you mind giving an widely accepted definition for "illegal nukes", The definition should also explain which nukes are legal and legit, and why.
I believe such a definition would essential to any continued debate.

After you bring such a definition, hopefully a definition that can be accepted by people from all over the world (and not only by people from nations who are allowed to have weapons according to it). We could all examine which of the countries you mentioned Iran, India, Afghanistan, Israel is believed to have illegal weapons and how does that correspond with the definition.

Quote:
Mark Johnston wrote:
For instance, regarding your point on Israel, why is Iran getting so much pressure whereas Pakistan, India and Israel are not being threatened with sanctions? And how would the Muslim world see this?
At the moment, I would agree with you the argument against Iran possessing Nuclear weapons is not based on any "natural justice" but rather on the interests of those who feel threatened by it. Namely - the arab oil states which are the main cause for the US concern, Israel (considering "Ahmedinajad's much-publicized remarks about wanting to wipe Israel off the map" as written in time-magazine: http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...149323,00.html I am sure you could look for other sources too), and Europe (the Iranian missiles range already covers the southern parts of Italy.

As for the reason Iran is getting much more pressure compared to Pakistan and India, the reason is quite obvious. Iran has taken upon itself the purpose of propagating the Shi'a Muslim religion world-wide. It has been accused more then once for financing terrorists out-side its borders and taking a militant role. Nobody wishes a person with the reputation of Iran's leaders to hold a gun to his head, let a lone a nuclear missile.

Amir

P.S.
I rarely add links since finding links in English for things I have already read about in Hebrew takes too much of my time. I suggest that next time, when obvious facts are disputed I will add the link in Hebrew. As far as Israel not signing the NPT, even Arab sources write this down (look at the last paragraph of this paragraph which is definitely not pro-Israel): http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%2...20Hastings.htm
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2006, 04:28 AM   #12
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 643
Israel
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Just found a link that explains the major difference between Iran and between India, Pakistan and Israel:
Iran signed the NPT and is now announcing it intentions to violate it, even though Iran has received aid in developing nuclear science and energy based on the commitment for NPT compliance.

India, Pakistan and Israel all refused to join the NPT. In accordance, the world may dislike those countries holding nuclear weapons, but it has no international legal claim. Joining the NPT is voluntary.

The link is to an old article, but the facts are still relevant.
http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~steing/arms/techrev.htm

Amir
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2006, 11:29 AM   #13
mj
Location: livingston, scotland
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 715
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

I would argue that *not* signing the NPT is just as bad as signing it then violating it. The fact is that there is absolutely no difference between any of the countries regarding nuclear weapon development.

Apart from the fact that Israel, India and Pakistan have nukes and are not being threatened in any way. Does one hear any threats from America or Britain regarding India?

The idea of America proposing military action against Israel is laughable - this highlights the perceived hypocrisy.

Iran does not have nukes, as everyone freely admits - but is being threatened with sanctions and military action. Iran primarily deals with Russia and China - China receives 13% of its oil imports from Iran and would immediately veto any sanctions put on the table at the UN. In the same way that the US always vetos proposals against Israel for its own purposes.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2006, 12:51 PM   #14
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

well, I'm not an expert in this area, but here's my thoughts...

India and Pakistan threaten each other...and both have nukes.

Iran threatens Israel, and Israel has nukes (not sure about Iran).

Iran should not be surprised if their threats are taken seriously, and they suffer the consequences of that. Especially since THEY KNOW Israel has nukes.

Signatories to a document should be bound by that document.

Non-signatories cannot be bound to a document they didn't sign.

Seems pretty common sense to me.

Best,
Ron (lord, I hope the US doesn't end up in a war in Iran after the fiasco in Iraq)

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2006, 12:56 PM   #15
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote:
Iran should not be surprised if their threats are taken seriously, and they suffer the consequences of that. Especially since THEY KNOW Israel has nukes.
Yeah, I bet Pat Robertson could tell a thing or two to Iran about the peril of making stupid public comments about Israel (or, its leaders), hehe.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2006, 01:04 PM   #16
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

oh ick...PR needs to find a new planet...

Best,
R

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2006, 03:39 PM   #17
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Yeah, agreed: but "Planet Robertson" will have to be somewhere other than Israel, hehehehe...

Israel: Woe unto Pat Robertson for criticizing Sharon
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2006, 08:23 AM   #18
Amir Krause
Dojo: Shirokan Dojo / Tel Aviv Israel
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 643
Israel
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Mark Johnston wrote:
I would argue that *not* signing the NPT is just as bad as signing it then violating it. The fact is that there is absolutely no difference between any of the countries regarding nuclear weapon development.
Excuse me "just as bad" under which criteria ?

Previously you referred to illegal weapons, and you accused me of not bringing links to prove my claim that Iran case is different compared to India, Israel and Pakistan. In retrospect, you are the one who compared apples and oranges, and forgot to bring any link. So now you change your argument from "illegal" to "just as bad" and so I must ask, based on whose morality?

Would you mind informing us what does the NPT agreement state? And what exactly turns it to a moral righteous thing ? (links please)

To my best knowledge, the basis is a decision that only 5 countries should have nuclear weapons, and therefore - world wide military supremacy.
There is nothing righteous, virtuous or moral with regard to this agreement. This agreement does not force the removal of world-wrecking nuclear weapons. At best, one could say there is some practicality concerning the future of man-kind, since fewer parties with nuclear weapons would reduce the likelihood of such weapons being used in any war. Though it would not prevent other atrocities from happening as has been demonstrated through-out the world, and particularly in Africa in the last decade - genocide does not require any special technology.
However, any country that agreed to this agreement, should be committed to it. Particularly since the NPT signatory countries assist other countries in developing nuclear science based on the agreement from those countries to sign the NPT.
I do find your willingness to forgive countries from breaking this type of agreement to be very troublesome. Given this willingness, to consider international agreements on the basis of your momentary preferences, why should any country be willing to count on an international agreement? Why should anyone keep a peace agreement if he finds an opportunity to renegade on it (and yes, this time I am implying to the middle --east situation).

Personally, I fear the day Iran has nuclear weapons. Since I am not sure Iranian leaders way of viewing the world coincides with mine with regard to survival of the species. I fear it more having read the threats Iran has made with regards to annihilating the place I live. My fear is substantiated by the Iranian insistence to be involved in funding and supplying terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah ( a Lebanonise Shiite terrorist organization that keeps attacking Israel under the cover of the UN, even though the UN has decreed that Israel retreated from all of Lebanon grounds).


Quote:
Mark Johnston wrote:
Iran does not have nukes, as everyone freely admits - but is being threatened with sanctions and military action.
It is much more difficult to take nukes from a country and much easier to stop the process of gaining such weaponry. Suppose you knew I had some things against you, and had history of violence, would you wait until I held a charged gun at your head before reacting? Is this the timing we are taught to act in Aikido -- wait until the threat is such that the action would have to be very severe? Or act when minimal energy is required. ?


Quote:
Mark Johnston wrote:
Iran primarily deals with Russia and China - China receives 13% of its oil imports from Iran and would immediately veto any sanctions put on the table at the UN. In the same way that the US always vetos proposals against Israel for its own purposes.
I agree with you international politics analysis. This topic is ruled by interest first.


Amir
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2006, 08:34 AM   #19
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Hi Amir,

I agree with all of your statements except this one:

Quote:
and particularly in Africa in the last decade - genocide does not require any special technology.
Africa is NOT the only continent in the last decade to deal with genocide. Eastern Europe is also notable in this regard (Bosnia, Chechnia, etc.). I'm sure you didn't mean anything in particular by your statement, but such things are often taken out of context by people not so well meaning as yourself.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2006, 10:11 AM   #20
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
some simple comments:
Who are the nukes supposed to defend against?
The only one who attacked Iran is Sadam Hussain. The U.S. has removed this threat. Who else is CURRENTLY threatening Iran out of the contest of it's Mass destruction weapons plans?
Hi Amir,

It should be obvious who the nuc's are supposed to defend against (that is, assuming that Iran will actually MAKE nuc's): the US. The lesson of N. Korea vs. Iraq as part of the "Axis o' Eevel" is simple: you have nuc's, the US leaves you alone.

Iran is simply trying to survive. They're not stupid: all the latest noise is one big PR push for the next big, violent thing. It's the American Way.

Quote:
Amir Krause wrote:
Excuse me "just as bad" under which criteria ?
Bad, as in, really stupid, and dangerously destabilizing to world peace.

Nuclear weapons have the opposite effect upon Israel, than Iran. Israel is surrounded by real, and perceived, enemies. They all view Israel as an even greater threat, now that it has nuclear weapons.

And, Israel doesn't even need these weapons: ironically, they're a threat to Israel's security, as well. Israel has never been more secure from external threats. Syria's forces are retreating from Lebanon; the Taliban has been neutralized in Afghanistan and there is no longer a Soviet Union to encourage Arab nations to antagonize Israel. Hussein is gone, and any nation stupid enough to try to invade Israel would receive the immediate attention of the US war-machine.

Israel's having nuclear weapons only encourages other nations in the region, to follow suit.

Quote:
To my best knowledge, the basis is a decision that only 5 countries should have nuclear weapons, and therefore - world wide military supremacy.
There is nothing righteous, virtuous or moral with regard to this agreement. This agreement does not force the removal of world-wrecking nuclear weapons. At best, one could say there is some practicality concerning the future of man-kind, since fewer parties with nuclear weapons would reduce the likelihood of such weapons being used in any war.
Yes. The best thing would be a total ban on nuclear weapons and technology, for all.


Quote:
Though it would not prevent other atrocities from happening as has been demonstrated through-out the world, and particularly in Africa in the last decade - genocide does not require any special technology.
Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote:
Africa is NOT the only continent in the last decade to deal with genocide. Eastern Europe is also notable in this regard (Bosnia, Chechnia, etc.).
Not to mention E. Timor, Aceh, in Asia, etc.

Quote:
Personally, I fear the day Iran has nuclear weapons.
I fear the day some US commander decides to try out their shiny, new, battlefield-nuc toys...that will happen a lot sooner, than Iran shooting a nuc at Israel.

Quote:
It is much more difficult to take nukes from a country and much easier to stop the process of gaining such weaponry. Suppose you knew I had some things against you, and had history of violence, would you wait until I held a charged gun at your head before reacting?
But (going by this example): suppose I had a history of violence, and had some things against you, too. Worse, I already had a gun pointed at your head.

Don't you think it's better that we put down all the toys and start talking like adults?

Quote:
Is this the timing we are taught to act in Aikido -- wait until the threat is such that the action would have to be very severe? Or act when minimal energy is required. ?
Please: I live in a country where our leaders told us we had a threat, where there was none. Over and over, I heard the same mantra: "What are we supposed to DO?? How can we just WAIT??" "We cannot wait for verification to come in the form of a mushroom cloud," blah blah blah.

The important thing is distinguishing btw an actual threat, or becoming a threat yourself, to others.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 01-19-2006 at 10:15 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2006, 11:02 AM   #21
James Davis
 
James Davis's Avatar
Dojo: Ft. Myers School of Aikido
Location: Ft. Myers, FL.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 716
United_States
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Yes. The best thing would be a total ban on nuclear weapons and technology, for all.
Don't you think it's better that we put down all the toys and start talking like adults?
Talking like adults has been attempted many times in the past, in the middle east and plenty of other places. A large problem with this course of action is that the U.N. doesn't follow up on its promises of punishment for those who break the law. While people die under the thumb of a dictator, we can find the U.N. shooting up slums in third world countries. Any member nation of the U.N. that thinks about doing something about said dictator will have their hands tied by other member nations.

All of the talking in the world sometimes won't even break up two high school boys in a fistfight! What makes us think that we can just talk to a murderous dictator and everything will be okay every time?

I'm all for trying to solve things through reasonable discussion, but not everyone is reasonable! I think trying to talk about our problems is the best thing to do when the situation allows it, but being all talk is out of the question.

The group that kidnapped Jill Carroll isn't interested in intellectually honest debate. They want their friends released from prison and they will kill her unless that happens. They're not listening. They could have mailed a statement to Al Jazeera(sp?), but dropped off a video of a scared kidnapping victim instead. These people aren't interested in talking. They think the rules that we follow shouldn't apply to them; they think they're special. Jill Carroll has never done anything to hurt these people, and has in fact worked damn hard at getting out the story of war-weary Iraqis. It doesn't look like these terrorists care too much about what kind of person she is.

What's the big deal about these terrorists, huh? They're just misunderstood! They just want us to leave! Then, when we're gone, they'll only want Israel...

...just like Hitler only wanted Austria.

We've all been talking for a long damn time. We started peace summits, and they started hijacking planes and taking hostages. If we start giving in to their demands, they'll start taking more hostages. What a great world that'll make.

No nation is perfect. The U.S.A. have made plenty of mistakes. Should we spend all of our time all of our time wringing our hands and crying about the past trying to make every last person happy? If that's the case, I demand an immediate apology from Scotland...

...because I live in south Florida, and I think golf sucks.

"The only difference between Congress and drunken sailors is that drunken sailors spend their own money." -Tom Feeney, representative from Florida
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2006, 11:21 AM   #22
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote:
Talking like adults has been attempted many times in the past, in the middle east and plenty of other places.
That's right. Sometimes it works: sometimes not.

Quote:
What makes us think that we can just talk to a murderous dictator and everything will be okay every time?
What makes us think that we can just pour all our resources into "defence" and nuc's and be okay every time?

Quote:
I'm all for trying to solve things through reasonable discussion, but not everyone is reasonable! I think trying to talk about our problems is the best thing to do when the situation allows it, but being all talk is out of the question.
Consider this article:

Should We Negotiate With Terrorists?

Quote:
In answer to the question, should we negotiate with terrorists, Roger Fisher replies with a resounding yes, because the better our communication, the better our chances of exerting influence. But doesn't negotiating with someone whose behavior you abhor grant them legitimacy that they didn't have before, and therefore reward criminal activity? Won't this encourage further bad behavior because it means we have given into pressure? According to Fisher, it may confer a little legitimacy, but this effect can be minimized by involving relatively low level or non-governmental personnel in the initial talks. The effect could actually be eliminated if we had a policy of negotiating with anyone. With such a policy, no one could attain special status just because negotiations were opened.
Quote:
The group that kidnapped Jill Carroll isn't interested in intellectually honest debate. They want their friends released from prison and they will kill her unless that happens. They're not listening.
You don't know this; because we're not talking.

Quote:
These people aren't interested in talking. They think the rules that we follow shouldn't apply to them; they think they're special.
As opposed to the Defender's o' Freedom, whose leader has a direct line to God.



Quote:
...just like Hitler only wanted Austria.
Negotiation does not = Appeasement

Quote:
We've all been talking for a long damn time. We started peace summits, and they started hijacking planes and taking hostages.
Oversimplified. The Iranian's released the hostages; Guiliana Sgrena was released. Negotiation sometimes works; sometimes doesn't. To start talking extremes and oversimplicities is to start down the road of "either for us, or again' us;" all the while cozy'ing up to other mass-murdering despots (see my sig).

Last edited by Neil Mick : 01-19-2006 at 11:26 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2006, 12:56 PM   #23
mj
Location: livingston, scotland
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 715
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Amir if you are going to ask me directly to answer questions...just ask one or two please - not a ridiculous amount like you did in that post.

I prefer debate to ad hominems.

However I will answer some of your points.
Quote:
Excuse me "just as bad" under which criteria ?
under my criteria - I said "I would argue" it is not a yes or no, it is an argument. Allow me to expand on it. If one country has nukes and has signed the NPT then I don't think they are any more moral than another country that does not sign it and develops them. Is that plainer?
Quote:
Would you mind informing us what does the NPT agreement state?
don't be insulting please - get up off your ass and tell me what it says if it concerns you, but don't tell me to do something you can do just as quickly yourself
Quote:
I do find your willingness to forgive countries from breaking this type of agreement to be very troublesome.
another accusation...please provide a link to where I am forgiving anyone - back it up this time
Quote:
Personally, I fear the day Iran has nuclear weapons
well I don't. but then I've never done anything to enrage them

more seriously - iran having nukes will balance things out nicely and we might all get some peace

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2006, 03:45 PM   #24
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Now, THIS article puts a whole new curl on Iran, Iraq, and Bush's motivations to attack certain Middle East countries who threaten to switch to the Euro standard in exchange for oil.

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

Quote:
Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can't explain why Bush would want to seize those fields-he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have gone into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished-he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2006, 08:05 PM   #25
Lorien Lowe
Dojo: Northcoast Aikido
Location: California
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 289
Offline
Re: Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
James Davis, Jr. wrote:
Why would [Iran] need nuclear power?...
For the same reason that the Bush admin is pushing nuclear (nuculur) power here in the US: it dosen't produce huge ammounts of smog, and depending on whether one is more afraid of global warming or of spent nuclear fuel, it is arguably more environmentally friendly.

As to whether they want bombs to defend themselves from the US, well sure - maybe that's the primary objective. Given their support of terrorism, and their tendancy towards religious extremism, I wouldn't bet that defense is the only thing they have on their minds.

Gods, we have religious fundamentalists here in the US (a frightening number of whom have more political power than I like) saying we should 'just nuke them' whenever we have a problem with some other country; why should we imagine humans are so different anywhere else?

LK
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

Aikido DVDs and Video Downloads - by George Ledyard Sensei & other great teachers from AikidoDVDS.Com



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:53 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2014 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate