Iraq-stockpile of nuclear weapons?

[watch-this-drive]

thanks for the answer

Do you understand the relationship between Islam and Democracy ?

well thet are two very different things, are you talking about them being incompatible?

By certain Western standards, no, Iran does not have a democracy.

Im not talking about western standards, Im asking you whether they are democratic or undemocratic, no 'western-style democracy' nesscary -
you are familiar with the concepts democratic and undemocratic right?

you hinted before that you thought they were democratic

It has theocracy. Now in your mind, does that make it a target for US agression maybe so.

dont put words in my mouth

the sort of demcracy that Iran has currently, which allows for elected leaders do run the administrative functions of government, but accepting that at all times, the theocratic rule of the Ayatollah has the power to circumvent decision making at admimistrative levels.

sounds more the sort of dictatorship... to me

However, if you wish to believe that Iran should be in someway "forced" to accept Liberal western style democracy, then you must also accept that you must first destroy the culture of Islam, and eventually Islam itself. Would that be seen by you as acceptable ?

forced?, I never suggested that, why do you accept the dictatorship that is being forced on the Iranians now?
is it simply because it is the status quo?
do you favour the status quo in Myramar, Zimbabwe, Pakistan or do you think that those peoples should have their say in the ruling of their country?

By the way, if you wish to carry out such an argument, would you also in that case, wish to invade the Vatican, as it to is a theocratic state, which has no democratic levels at all, and not only denies women the right to vote, but in fact denies them the right to be citizens at all ?

you really arent listening, I didnt say anything about invading Iran, this is what happens when you decide not to read what I actually wrote.
I said the Ayatolla has no right to make such a grave decision on behave of the Iranian people because he is a ruthless dictator - there is very few similarities with the Vatican because the Pope is building a bomb.

Why do you think women cant be Vatican citizens - I think you are wrong there

However, more pertinent to the Middle East, and your seeming concern with democracy in that region, can you give a valid explanation as to why the US seems to believe its so important to have demcracy in Iran, but not in Saudi Arabia ?

what you mean like this ...?
Rice
i think they should do much more, but then again Im the defender of all things US so maybe we should stick to my opinions rather than White House Policys
l

[nixmix]

how is that compatible with its policy towards Israel? Surely if it was purely motivated by energy needs, it would let the Arabs do what they want to the Israeli's?

Now that's an easy one,http://www.aipac.org/ who do fund a lot of US politicians including Hilary Clinton check this out: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan06/Frank03.htm
Dogs never bite the hands that feed them..

[The OD]

As I recall, the whole point of the thread was to discuss the FI's absurd allegations regarding 'Iraq's stockpile of Nuclear Weaponry' or some other such tosh. It doesnt exist, didnt exist and its quite possible that it probably would never have existed. Using a blatant fallacy to promote their argument is against Iran is ridiculous and gives me another reason to takes the FI with a large pinch of salt.

The facts are quite simple. Nuclear weaponry is not a right. Nuclear power is for some nations a neccessity although some would argue the price in terms of the waste and the danger of meltdown is just not worth it. As to the statement about non democratic countries having nuclear capability, what of Pakistan? I dont remember Musharrifs triumphant election speech - did he do one at his after-coup party?

No one should possess the ability to wipe out all life on this planet, whether they are a democratic country or not. If the US can have them and their dictator buddy Musharrif, why not Iran? I would say that Iran should not have them for the simple reason that no one should.

But what of China? Lets be perfectly honest here. If there was ever a nation that shouldnt have nukes it the Chinese. Their absolute lack of respect for amongst other things, human rights, the environment and indeed the lives of its own citizens is disturbing indeed. Yet why no outcry?

Because its bully boy tactics that are being used against smaller nations and whilst I have no problem with the US and the EU opposing their acquisition by a state which is democratic in name only, I have to laugh at not only the hypocrisy, but the idiocy of some of the arguments made. The fact is, the US and the EU wont bully China because they cant .
I do wish though that they would. For all I dislike a lot of the US governments deeds throughout the past 60 of so years, I also applaud many others things they have done also and I would prefer to see them remain in the hands of western powers who have so far shown restraint than into anymore hands - better the devil you know. For all that I disagree with the decision to bomb Japan in WW2, I still think the caution shown by not only the US, but communist Russia, Britain and France is a relief. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is one which has served to focus minds on the total lunacy that is nuclear war.

Now, I dislike Ahminajhad and doubt I have anything in common with him besides the fact that we have dark hair and are male. I believe he is more than a little unstable and should not be allowed to produce nukes. However, I have a sneaky feeling that the nuclear power program that is claimed to be a front for the acquisition and construction of nuclear weaponry may be just that. Not because I trust him, not because I have a pathological mistrust of the US 'intelligence services' but simply because for all the allegations about Irans would be aggression, they just wouldnt be so stupid to try and take on a nation like the US, who has shown itself to more than willing to go to war at the drop of a hat, even when their reasons have been proven to be total and utter fabrication?

And where have we heard before that an Islamic nation, hostile to 'western values' was a clear and present threat and was developing weapons of mass destruction, which threaten all 'freedom loving nations' ( ) ?

[watch-this-drive]

If the US can have them and their dictator buddy Musharrif, why not Iran?

two wrong make a....

But what of China? Lets be perfectly honest here. If there was ever a nation that shouldnt have nukes it the Chinese.

couldnt agree more, Id day the USSR was worse but China and Pakistan shouldnt have nukes, if I was in charge we wouldnt even trade apples with them

Their absolute lack of respect for amongst other things, human rights, the environment and indeed the lives of its own citizens is disturbing indeed. Yet why no outcry?

Amen

[watch-this-drive]

Having thoroughly b*tchslapped Rock and Bogwarrior in my last 10-15 middle east posts it will be nice to go out in a similar vein in educating Pax who obviously wsnt paying attention

(yes my arrogance has reached its zenith for this my last ever post)

But as regards this discussion you're having with WTD. IIRC, myself and fish08 were having a very similar 'discussion' with wtd on 'US Plans To Attack Iran in June' thread see here . Most of it was taken up by the fact that Iran has a democracy but an imperfect one. Some people can't do apples and pears it seems....

a democracy but an imperfect one, how bloody-minded!

like I said in my last post if you cant spend 5 minutes imagining living somewhere then you really arent worth listening to -

of the 8,157 entrants for the last elections 2,530 were banned and not allowed to stand (31%), this is power structure of Iran, there are plenty of reformers in jail

this is the power structure of Iran

-Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: Appointed for life, overrides all other authorities
-Guardians Council: Half chosen by Khamenei, responsible for vetting election candidates and laws
-President Mohammad Khatami: Elected for four years, power can be circumscribed by clerics
-Parliament: 290 members introduce and pass laws, subject to approval

thats from the BBC btw

a democracy but an imperfect one, how wrong you are, shame on you
the real question is - why are you happy spread such lies?

good bye
now watch-this-drive

[rockofcashel]

Having thoroughly b*tchslapped Rock and Bogwarrior in my last 10-15 middle east posts it will be nice to go out in a similar vein in educating Pax who obviously wsnt paying attention

(yes my arrogance has reached its zenith for this my last ever post)

WTD, I stopped engaging with you because you, like the other man famous for your phrase, are an idiot.

For you, and those whose belief in geo-politics is guided by bad people, I have only one word

Baaa.....

[ireland2004]

Happy...? to spread lies...?

Shame on you Pax. How dare you lie about your reasons for declaring war on America - "WMD that can be used in seconds"... How dare you I'm just so glad our liberal democracies would never, ever do something as callous as lie to start a war.

[Worldbystorm]

While WTD may not phrase his argument in perhaps the most effective way it's difficult to understand why people here are defending a theocratic regime that if any of us whingers (I include myself) lived under we'd be up in arms in five minutes. Or not, as we'd be massively oppressed.

Iran is not a democracy. It has pseudo democratic elements, but in reality is run by a small religious clique. I know people who were exiled from it. I know of other people who were badly tortured by the regime.

Let's not get starry eyed about it as a regime and let's not get into whataboutery. Yes, the US has sanctioned torture, yes the US has made ludicrous mistakes. However the US is a democracy. Their foreign policy is already shifting and is amenable to public opinion in a way that would be unthinkable in Iran.

[Pax]

Having thoroughly b*tchslapped Rock and Bogwarrior in my last 10-15 middle east posts it will be nice to go out in a similar vein in educating Pax who obviously wsnt paying attention

(yes my arrogance has reached its zenith for this my last ever post)

But as regards this discussion you're having with WTD. IIRC, myself and fish08 were having a very similar 'discussion' with wtd on 'US Plans To Attack Iran in June' thread see here . Most of it was taken up by the fact that Iran has a democracy but an imperfect one. Some people can't do apples and pears it seems....

a democracy but an imperfect one, how bloody-minded!

like I said in my last post if you cant spend 5 minutes imagining living somewhere then you really arent worth listening to -

of the 8,157 entrants for the last elections 2,530 were banned and not allowed to stand (31%), this is power structure of Iran, there are plenty of reformers in jail

this is the power structure of Iran

-Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: Appointed for life, overrides all other authorities
-Guardians Council: Half chosen by Khamenei, responsible for vetting election candidates and laws
-President Mohammad Khatami: Elected for four years, power can be circumscribed by clerics
-Parliament: 290 members introduce and pass laws, subject to approval

thats from the BBC btw

a democracy but an imperfect one, how wrong you are, shame on you
the real question is - why are you happy spread such lies?

good bye
now watch-this-drive

Wtd, have you got some special glasses that make it seem like you've “b*tchslapped” posters around the place when in fact you've done no such thing?
Also, do you read facts as lies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Gover ... d_Politics
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/m ... efault.stm

Iran's complex and unusual political system combines elements of a modern Islamic theocracy with democracy. A network of unelected institutions controlled by the highly powerful conservative Supreme Leader is countered by a president and parliament elected by the people.

Or do you see no incongruity in a situation where a nation preaches to another about it's lack of democracy and er eviltude despite the fact that it was the one that had smashed it's fledling democracy in the first place!

But the above post is just beyond the bounds of my powers O' parody!

While WTD may not phrase his argument in perhaps the most effective way it's difficult to understand why people here are defending a theocratic regime that if any of us whingers (I include myself) lived under we'd be up in arms in five minutes. Or not, as we'd be massively oppressed.

Iran is not a democracy. It has pseudo democratic elements, but in reality is run by a small religious clique. I know people who were exiled from it. I know of other people who were badly tortured by the regime.

Let's not get starry eyed about it as a regime and let's not get into whataboutery. Yes, the US has sanctioned torture, yes the US has made ludicrous mistakes. However the US is a democracy. Their foreign policy is already shifting and is amenable to public opinion in a way that would be unthinkable in Iran.

I really don't think people are defending it and this is certainly not whataboutery! Or is it not correct to bring US – Iran relations of the past into this...

But maybe I should have been more clear in my previous post, it's just I would have thought that along with a revulsion for the Shah's dictatorship (and all that entails for instance the SAVAK and their victims of torture) would go hand in hand with not being in favour of the same under a theocratic/ pseudo democratic one?

I think its worth pointing out (whining if you will...) that the nation (and not forgetting the British involvement) that brutally nipped the fledgling Iranian democracy in the bud (and supports dictatorships and monarchies in the middle east today) is the very same nation that is bemoaning its current lack of democracy!

In fact the situation in Iran is that the conservatives there now control both the parliament and the presidency (recent developments nearby having had an effect conducive to fear and such politics etc) and are engaging in posturing to shore up support. We should not fall into that trap and those democratic reformists deserve better. It would be inhuman to force trade sanctions upon the Iranian people for such reasons. Better to let the conservative cycle take it's course at this time while supporting reformists. In this case perhaps friendly peace mongering in Israel and Iraq and what some would see as 'appeasement' is the best form of attack.

I also don't think that US foreign policy is amenable to public opinion to enough of a degree to not make things worse and not better in Iran. Unless there's not just a Democratic President but say a Carter style peace mongering one then it's going to be the same old story.

As regards the NPT. The point I was making in my previous post is about how ridiculous it is, not that is should be scrapped and not replaced. It should be scrapped and replaced! I believe the less states with nuclear power the better but the NPT is from a naïve age wrt to nuclear power and it's uses and dangers (not to mention prohibitive expense that could be spent elsewhere (there's good leviathan thread on nuclear and climate change...)). Having said all that a nation of whatever hue democratic, monarchy, theocratic republic or whatever have the right under it to choose nuclear power if they so wish. Posts before this did not seem to take this into account.

Also Ahmadinejad, the ****************************** that he is, has just said that his country does not need nuclear weapons. He said they were needed only by people who "want to solve everything through the use of force". And Iran says it has a right to peaceful nuclear technology [which it has under the NPT] and denies that it is covertly seeking to develop weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4612546.stm

[Worldbystorm]

If I may I dientangle your argument in the following way.

You appear to be saying Iranian democracy is the best that can be expected in 2006 since the US/UK smashed it in 1953. At least that's my interpretation of your posting the graphic of the power structure of Iran up.

This despite the fact that the Revolution occurred in 1979, that human rights in Iran have stayed pretty much the same as under the Shah. Leftists, such as ourselves, have been executed in droves by the Khomenei regime and after.

The clear paradox of a democracy being overseen by an unelected theocratic element worries me and should any democrat.

Re: the contemporary US and UK positions. I'd strongly disagree that they aren't amenable to public (and diplomatic) pressure. We've seen how the US has been stymied in it's dealings with Chavez by regional and public pressure. (Iraq was sui generis, before but particularly after 9/11. What other country had an a sanctions regime watched continually on an armed basis? So nothing was going to 'save' the Saddam regime).

I think something has to be done with regard to Iran for a number of reasons. An introverted unstable leadership, mixed with a lack of democratic oversight and a fairly evident wish to push for nuclear weapons is a dangerous mix. What form that response takes will be interesting. I wouldn't necessarily count out sanctions, although not perhaps at this point.

I'm unclear as to your 'appeasement' line of thought in relation to Iraq (although broadly agree with peace-mongering in Israel). Surely the elements in Iraq who are most hostile to the US are equally hostile to the Shia majority. Is 'appeasement' with them going to bring the outcome you want or could it be rather more mixed. Might not Shia see that as a double betrayal by the US? Although I have to say I personally wanted the US to withdraw from Iraq shortly after the invasion and it's forces be replaced by a multi-national coalition. It's probably too late for that now. Who would want to send troops?

A problem I have with your analysis re 'supporting' reformists is that it appears to me to effectively be no action. Perhaps that's correct, perhaps any intervention will be mistaken, but it seems pretty dismal if that's so.

Finally I'd be the first to admit the NPT was flawed. But, in lieu of a better world it's probably one of the best instruments for retarding the spread of nuclear weapons technologies. I'm a pessimist on these matters. I think eventually more countries will have weapons and I'm fairly sure there is little that can be done about it.