Iran A-Bomb Complete
Courtney - his vision of a "single state solution" is clearly impossible as if it were democratic it would be a Palestinian dominated state, which would be completely unacceptable to the Israelis. However, it is wrong to interpret his proposed solution as meaning that Iran wants to nuke Israel. At least they have made a constructive peace proposal, albeit a fairly unrealistic one.
Part of the reason that Israel continually demonises Iran is to deflect attention from this proposal, and indeed from other more reasonable peace proposals put forward by neighbouring countries eg by the Arab League (Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), or the two-state solution supported by the UN.
Israel refuses to accept the single-state solution proposed by Iran, the two-state solution supported by the UN (but vetoed by the USA), and the Arab Peace Initiative. The only future they are prepared to countenance is one where the Palestinians are confined to a ghetto, without freedom to travel or run their own affairs.
Part of the reason that Israel continually demonises Iran is to deflect attention from this proposal, and indeed from other more reasonable peace proposals put forward by neighbouring countries eg by the Arab League (Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), or the two-state solution supported by the UN.
Israel refuses to accept the single-state solution proposed by Iran, the two-state solution supported by the UN (but vetoed by the USA), and the Arab Peace Initiative. The only future they are prepared to countenance is one where the Palestinians are confined to a ghetto, without freedom to travel or run their own affairs.
Yes. That is a different issue. But it doesn't suddenly make Iran a stable, reliable state. I think, perhaps, Israel may think that Iran's part in this is another "outside" intarference that they cannot tollerate. They are, maybe understandibly, somewhat paranoid - a Jewish state surrounded by what they see as potential or actual enemies.
The fellows at the Collings Foundation have a flyable F-4.
McDonnell F-4D Phantom II - The Collings Foundation
The Collings Foundation - Preserving Living Aviation History for Future Generations
Good folks, doing wonderful work.
McDonnell F-4D Phantom II - The Collings Foundation
The Collings Foundation - Preserving Living Aviation History for Future Generations
Good folks, doing wonderful work.
I have a friend who flies with them. Sadly, the Phantom is on a civil, not mil, airworthiness certificate. 
It and the A-4 are still flying, last I heard.
It and the A-4 are still flying, last I heard.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
TT (and fellow followers).
Do you deny that it is a stated intention of Iran to do harm to Israel, that it wishes to see the Jewish people and their State erased, and that Iran is a open supporter of terrorism and militant islamism?
If you don't deny that then perhaps you might tell us what you think is the intention behind Iran's rush to develop nuclear weapons and whether you feel safe with that State joining the nuclear club?
Do you deny that it is a stated intention of Iran to do harm to Israel, that it wishes to see the Jewish people and their State erased, and that Iran is a open supporter of terrorism and militant islamism?
If you don't deny that then perhaps you might tell us what you think is the intention behind Iran's rush to develop nuclear weapons and whether you feel safe with that State joining the nuclear club?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TT (and fellow followers).
Do you deny that it is a stated intention of Iran to do harm to Israel, that it wishes to see the Jewish people and their State erased, and that Iran is a open supporter of terrorism and militant islamism?
If you don't deny that then perhaps you might tell us what you think is the intention behind Iran's rush to develop nuclear weapons and whether you feel safe with that State joining the nuclear club?
Do you deny that it is a stated intention of Iran to do harm to Israel, that it wishes to see the Jewish people and their State erased, and that Iran is a open supporter of terrorism and militant islamism?
If you don't deny that then perhaps you might tell us what you think is the intention behind Iran's rush to develop nuclear weapons and whether you feel safe with that State joining the nuclear club?
Why are they in such a rush to develop the technology, why let me think perhaps for the same reasons we were, together with all the other members of the club. Time and again we are told they give us influence, and of course they are a deterrent. Our argument for holding a nuclear capability can be no less credible when deployed by others - or can it sisemen?
Yes Iran is a threat to peace, just as we are so long as we (the west) maintain our intransigence in recognizing that maybe just maybe there is a legitimacy in some of their complaint. Peace imposed is a false hope, the days of constraining people by wielding a big stick above their heads is over - you need to move on. Jaw Jaw not War War
Last edited by TomJoad; 11th Apr 2013 at 09:22.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why did Israel build nuclear weapons? because they were surrounded by potential enemies and didn't trust their US allies to save them if the chips were down
Why are the Iranians building nuclear weapons? because they were surrounded by potential enemies and they don't have ANY allies to save them if the chips were down
Why are the Iranians building nuclear weapons? because they were surrounded by potential enemies and they don't have ANY allies to save them if the chips were down
HH & TJ,
You've both leapt on just one of Sisemen's questions and ignored the two more relevant bits.
I would have thought the answers were obvious. Once you answer 'no' to both of those, it makes your quite plausible answers about their nuclear ambitions slightly less rock-solid, I would suggest.
As for
Again, not so clear cut. Notwithstanding the Cold War arms race, I would suggest that our claim of deterrence and contributing to world peace is considerably more credible than Ahmadinejad trying to make the same claim. He is a man with a dubious human rights record, father of the second cultural revolution and who refuses to recognize Israel as a legitimate state. You can hardly argue that he has been honest and open, nor that he has given us the impression of a reliable world statesman. No less credible? I'm not so sure.
You've both leapt on just one of Sisemen's questions and ignored the two more relevant bits.
Do you deny that it is a stated intention of Iran to do harm to Israel
whether you feel safe with that State joining the nuclear club?
As for
Our argument for holding a nuclear capability can be no less credible when deployed by others
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you replace "Iran" with "Israel" you get the same question and the same answers - i 'm not happy about either TBH but it's too late now
The cat is out of the bag and I understand why BOTH countries want nuclear weapons - they both act in their own best interests as they see them . I don't think either is somewhere I'd wish to live and and I don't think either is exactly a shining light of good behaviour
The cat is out of the bag and I understand why BOTH countries want nuclear weapons - they both act in their own best interests as they see them . I don't think either is somewhere I'd wish to live and and I don't think either is exactly a shining light of good behaviour
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 11th Apr 2013 at 13:25.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH & TJ,
............ I would suggest that our claim of deterrence and contributing to world peace is considerably more credible than Ahmadinejad trying to make the same claim. He is a man with a dubious human rights record, father of the second cultural revolution and who refuses to recognize Israel as a legitimate state. You can hardly argue that he has been honest and open, nor that he has given us the impression of a reliable world statesman. No less credible? I'm not so sure.
............ I would suggest that our claim of deterrence and contributing to world peace is considerably more credible than Ahmadinejad trying to make the same claim. He is a man with a dubious human rights record, father of the second cultural revolution and who refuses to recognize Israel as a legitimate state. You can hardly argue that he has been honest and open, nor that he has given us the impression of a reliable world statesman. No less credible? I'm not so sure.
Of course you would, and Ahmadadinejad would make the same claim. As has been said elsewhere, we justify our possession of nuclear weapons on the argument that they act as a deterrent to others who possess nuclear weapons or otherwise from doing us harm.
If our weapons deter the likes of Russia, or as Mr Cameron said the other week at Faslane, North Korea, then why would Iran's future nuclear deterrent not give Israel or others likely to visit harm on Iran the same pause for thought. Is Iran (any state for that matter) not as entitled as we are to deter her enemies, real or imagined, in the same fashion as ours do for ours. Unlike the laws of physics it would appear that logic is not a conserved property.
I do not wish to see Iran or any other country acquire nuclear weapons, there are more than enough in the world. However, we will not convince Iran that there is a better road when we defiantly hold on to ours because we believe we are inherently entitled. Let’s reduced this down to the simple schoolyard analogue; big kid says to small kid "you can’t do that cause I said so", small kid says "go **** yourself". The world has outlived the old polar narratives, we need a different engagement.
Last edited by TomJoad; 11th Apr 2013 at 18:10.
Then I should start searching eBay for some uranium to start my old nuke program. I have a neighbor that I'm not particularly fond of TJ, am I entitled to my own stockpile of nukes assuming I have the wherewithal to do so?
Should nothing be done to stop a a supporter of state terrorism from acquiring buckets of sunshine that might find itself into a Herrods in London likely easier and faster than to a Macy's the US?
Should nothing be done to stop a a supporter of state terrorism from acquiring buckets of sunshine that might find itself into a Herrods in London likely easier and faster than to a Macy's the US?
Last edited by West Coast; 11th Apr 2013 at 18:31.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should nothing be done to stop a a supporter of state terrorism from acquiring buckets of sunshine that might find itself into a Herrods in London likely easier and faster than to a Macy's the US?
The ever growing issue here is that the West has effectively done nothing, repeat nothing, to contain Israel. Unless someone in the West, and I see nothing happening here with B.O.'s latest hand to Israel, this "problem" is going to be precisely that, a pretty BIG problem, on a scale which makes the recent history, look like a walk in the park.
Was it rather 'Nice to Have' before, now it is a perceived 'Must'.
Israel possessing Nuclear Weapons and more or less openly showing a desire to attac Iran doesn't help either.
Yes Iran having Nuclear weapons is not an attractive perspective at all.
And yes Iran does not really make the impression they are willing to fight islamic terrorism (this with or without Nukes) - to put it mildly.
But attacking them to prevent possession of Nuclear Weapons or to fight Terrorism (seemingly jusitified or not) is still morally questionable and moreover probably the worst sign you can give them or any other country. They will only try harder afterwards (and will probably be even more supported by China, NK or Russia in achieving this) in order to reach the safe haven (which is having the Bomb).
Also this external pressure helps the more radical forces in Iran enormously for the next elections. Politically you can't help Ahmadinejad any better than threatening Iran with an Attac. This will make sure he will stay in office after the next elections....
Courtney:
Certainly Iran is opposed to Israel's suppression of the Palestinians into stateless ghettoes, with no viable economic or political future. Iran definitely seeks a resolution for a viable future for the Palestinians. The Iranian proposal for a one-state solution for Israel and Palestine is certainly unlikely to happen, but at least it is a fair proposal. Iran has no stated intention to harm a broader, unified Israel, but certainly it is opposed to the current state of affairs which is akin to the appartheid regime in South Africa, or even to the Nazis treatment of (ironically) Jews prior to WW2.
Yes, I do feel safe with the prospect of Iran becoming a nuclear power. Tehran knows that if they were to first launch, they would be annihilated within hours by ripostes by every UNPSC member. By contrast, if Israel were to first launch (which is not out of the question, given their relative instability and history of launching pre-emptive strikes) they could possibly gamble on a US UNSC veto. So who do you think is the greater source of instability in the Middle East?
The world needs to wake up to the fact that Israeli intransigence over negotiating a viable future for the Palestinian people is the root-cause of jihadist violence worldwide.
Israel faces three choices:
1) Accept the UN supported two-state solution.
2) Accept the 2002/2007 Arab League solution.
3) Accept the Iranian one-state solution.
However, instead of countenancing any of these choices, Israel continues to use its powerful lobby in US and UK to suppress the Palestine people into ghettoes and to launch powerful propaganda against Iran.
Do you deny that it is a stated intention of Iran to do harm to Israel
whether you feel safe with that State joining the nuclear club?
The world needs to wake up to the fact that Israeli intransigence over negotiating a viable future for the Palestinian people is the root-cause of jihadist violence worldwide.
Israel faces three choices:
1) Accept the UN supported two-state solution.
2) Accept the 2002/2007 Arab League solution.
3) Accept the Iranian one-state solution.
However, instead of countenancing any of these choices, Israel continues to use its powerful lobby in US and UK to suppress the Palestine people into ghettoes and to launch powerful propaganda against Iran.
Originally Posted by Trim Stab
Israel faces three choices:
Originally Posted by Tom Joad
Because you hold to the same tired old conceit of deterrence; sorry I thought that was understood.
I am not pursuaded either by the turn in the discussion towards Israel. I am not sure that effectively saying "Look how bad Israel are and they've got a bomb" is justification for Iran to have one.
Before you assume too much again, NO I AM NOT declaring a position that is pro- or anti-Israel.