[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

Jaw jaw jaw is better than war war war.

Too many goodies go to nuclear powers and it appears to be a good thing (from the point of view of the new nuclear power) to become one. Look what happened to the Ukrainians when they gave theirs up.Every tribe on Earth dreams of greatness. There is no strategic need, for example for the French or British nuclear arsenals but their national pride demands that they have them. It also maintains them as "major players" when they're well past their sell-by dates. The same applies to place a like Iran and all of this negotiating is probably for naught. There are just too many advantages to the Iranians to having nuclear weapons and they will have them one way or another.

[andyt]

I think that's true. And as long as Israel has the bomb, there is every reason for Iran to want it too. The best example of course is North Korea. I think pandora's box was opened as soon as the US got the bomb, and it's inevitable that more and more countries will seek it as they get the money to do so. Even Britain and France, there are lots of good reasons to keep their arsenal. It got them a veto on the security council, and if it comes down to it, people will think twice before attacking them. Hell, we should probably get our own as well.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

I think that's true. And as long as Israel has the bomb, there is every reason for Iran to want it too. The best example of course is North Korea. I think pandora's box was opened as soon as the US got the bomb, and it's inevitable that more and more countries will seek it as they get the money to do so. Even Britain and France, there are lots of good reasons to keep their arsenal. It got them a veto on the security council, and if it comes down to it, people will think twice before attacking them. Hell, we should probably get our own as well.

Really?

There's another theory as to why Iran wants the bomb, you know? Whether it makes as much sense to the Iranians as defending themselves against a threat that's never presented itself is up to you, but...

Ever heard of the Twelfth Imam?

$1:

There is no requirement that non-Muslims must be responsible for that violence; Shi’ites filled with religious fervor, like the Ayatollah Khamenei and the mullahs behind him, could hasten the Twelfth Imam’s return and the consummation of all things by, say, launching a nuclear strike against Tel Aviv or some other Infidel outpost, knowing that by doing so they would almost certainly be provoking a retaliatory strike that would subject the Muslims in Iran to more defeat and repression than even the Shi’ites had previously suffered. That would be enough to bring the Twelfth Imam out of the well where he is said to be hiding.

But that is a matter of religious hope and speculation; the devastation that would supposedly lead to his reappearance, however, would be all too real. The two powers that the Iranian mullahs have long designated as the “Great Satan” and the “Little Satan” – America and Israel – would be the only targets of an Iranian attempt to hasten the Twelfth Imam’s coming.



A nuclear strike from Tehran into Israel could kill, estimates say, upwards of twenty million people, completely destroying the Jewish State.

Barack Obama, by acceding to the Iranians’ nuclear ambitions, has given a tremendous impetus to these revenge fantasies, probably not realizing or caring that Iran’s mullahs take the prophesies of the Twelfth Imam very seriously indeed – seriously enough for them to bet the entire world upon them. Obama has just made the odds appear to them to be considerably more favorable than they were just a week ago.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert ... -can-come/

Me, I can only guess, why Iran wants the bomb. It does seem obvious to me that they want it though, so I'm going to start calling Barry, Neville - or perhaps The Great Chamberlain.

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

I think that's true. And as long as Israel has the bomb, there is every reason for Iran to want it too. The best example of course is North Korea. I think pandora's box was opened as soon as the US got the bomb, and it's inevitable that more and more countries will seek it as they get the money to do so. Even Britain and France, there are lots of good reasons to keep their arsenal. It got them a veto on the security council, and if it comes down to it, people will think twice before attacking them. Hell, we should probably get our own as well.

You can't just blame Israel. The American, Russian, British, French, Pakistani and maybe even the Indian nuclear weapons are all potentially at play in the Muddle East.

BTW, Israel will NEVER relinquish their weapons, so any sentences that starts with "As long as Israel..." is a waste of ANSI characters

[andyt]

Who said I blame Israel? But then you can't blame Iran either. Israel is the expansionist power in the region, so from the other side's perspective, they are the threat.

Any idea that the bomb can be confined to a particular person's list of who the good guys are is a waste of neuroprocessing.

[N_Fiddledog]

I don't know about that. Most people would think somebody who makes a persistent point of saying how he wants to kill you (like say your average Mullah) might fall into their definition of a "bad guy".

[stratos]

Sorry as I've said before. I have no trust in Iran even if the current regime is over thrown and a very pro-west style is set up I still will not trust them.

[andyt]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I don't know about that. Most people would think somebody who makes a persistent point of saying how he wants to kill you (like say your average Mullah) might fall into their definition of a "bad guy".

You don't know about what? You seem to be responding to something I wrote.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

Sorry as I've said before. I have no trust in Iran even if the current regime is over thrown and a very pro-west style is set up I still will not trust them.

That's actually how we got to this place, overthrow the regime and put a pro-west puppet in power.

And no one trusts them! That's why the agreement looks like it has that lack of trust built in.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That's actually how we got to this place, overthrow the regime and put a pro-west puppet in power.

And harbor the leader who overthrew the puppet in France, thinking that he would make a great counter the the communists. Didn't turn out all that well.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That's actually how we got to this place, overthrow the regime and put a pro-west puppet in power.

And harbor the leader who overthrew the puppet in France, thinking that he would make a great counter the the communists. Didn't turn out all that well.

I can count the number of 'regime changes' that went well on no fingers.

[andyt]

Ah, the halcyon days when the religious were seen as bulwarks against the commies. "They might be Muslim terrorists, but they're our Muslim terrorists."

[DrCaleb]

$1:

But perhaps the most crucial aspect lies in the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) access to Iranian facilities. In the framework deal, Tehran has said it will once again voluntarily implement the Additional Protocol to its existing IAEA safeguards agreement, granting the nuclear watchdog more inspections authority. (Iran had previously implemented the Protocol but stopped adhering to it.) This means that IAEA inspectors will be able to regularly monitor Iranian facilities and can conduct unannounced inspections as well. Inspectors will also have access to the supply chain through which Iran obtains materials for its nuclear program. Inspections will likely last for about 25 years, longer than the implementation period of the agreement itself.

http://thebulletin.org/why-framework-nu ... -sides8152

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I don't know about that. Most people would think somebody who makes a persistent point of saying how he wants to kill you (like say your average Mullah) might fall into their definition of a "bad guy".

You don't know about what? You seem to be responding to something I wrote.

If I understand you correctly, and I admit it is not always easy, you are saying there are no good or bad bombs, so if one group has a bomb we can not define another group as good or bad guys, when they want one. If Israel has one, it doesn't make Iran bad guys for wanting one too, right? Is that what you're saying?

What I'm saying is my learning to accept Israel has a bomb does not mean I'm equally OK with these guys below having one.





Cause see what I call them are the "bad guys".

They want to kill me. I know that, because they say they want to kill me (American/Canadian...to a Mullah boy, what's the diff). That meets my definition of a bad guy.

Somebody who tells me I'm not allowed to think like that...

(Like say this brainiac - "Any idea that the bomb can be confined to a particular person's list of who the good guys are is a waste of neuroprocessing.")

meets my definition of an idiot.

[andyt]

I think the problem will be that Iran will make small moves to contravene the deal, and the US/alliance will be reluctant to react. France will as usual want to keep doing business, etc. Iran is smart enough to take it slow, but keep pushing. So the success of this deal will depend on the alliance to be very reactive, start with sanctions even for smaller infractions.

Ultimately tho, I think it's a lost cause. I think nukes will just keep proliferating. Just too much of an upside once you get one or two that you can deliver where it can do real harm.