11-08-2005 16:11									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

brilliant idea to get the US armed forces bogged down in Iraq at a time like this - Pakistan successfully testing nuclear weapons, North Korea and Iran developing them - thank you neocons

	11-08-2005 16:27									#92
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Molly, are you aware that Pakistan has elections as well? Are you aware that Musharaf reversed Paki support for the Taleban - and has been twice the subject of attempted assasinations by pro-AQ terrorists?

Yes, Pakistan has HAD elections, and it has also executed a democratically elected head of state, and had military coups. I think we can take it as read I know something about Pakistan's somewhat chequered electoral history since independence.

So Musharraf reversed Pakistan's support for the Taleban.

Bit late, though, wasn't it, given that Pakistan was one of only three countries to recognise the regime and did little to ameliorate the excesses, even from the beginning- witnesses place Pakistan secret services with the Taleban when the last Afghan leader and his brother were murdered, and left to decorate the lamp posts in Kabul.

Now which earlier Pakistani military dictator tried to establish sharia as the new basis for law in Pakistan ?

Oh yes, Zia ul-Haq- way back in 1977 when he launched his coup and Islamization programme.


And now of course Pakistan has the Babur- a cruise missile with the name of the founder of the Muslim Moghul dynasty in India.

I'm sure Delhi finds that mighty reassuring.

	11-08-2005 16:36									#93
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by GePap Its the same bullcrap, that somehow the Iranian regime can't be trusted with nukes aqs much as the other regimes that have them, which I view as utter nonsense, specially since no one ever brings up any worthwhile theories to back up such a spacious arguement. And then the terrorism canard- wow, so some states actively support political violence vs. People in other states. HOw, well, normal. I fail to see how supporting "terrorism" invalidates you from nuclear ownership, but arming rebels or the corrupt governments trying to stop them, leaing to deaths in far greater numbers make you a responsible member of the international community.

exactly, untill we are willing to look at and stop our own dirty tactics, we actualy have no moral high ground to stand on.
The advantage we have over countries like Iraq and other non democratic countries, is that we can make our governments do as we wish. Sadly we are apparantly blind and dont wish to look at the realities.

Hopefully this can change and we can start to repair the damage our governments have done in our names around the world - then we can start the realistic project of spreading democracy and peace around the world. We need to clean up our act first to succeed in doing this(which is why the neo-cons will fail, as their whole history is shrouded in dirty dealings and the perpetuation(sp?) of lies).

	12-08-2005 00:37									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

ok, Iran is being naughty, can we do something about it yet or should we wait for the UN to do nothing again?

	12-08-2005 02:06									#95
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom Yes, Pakistan has HAD elections, and it has also executed a democratically elected head of state, and had military coups. I think we can take it as read I know something about Pakistan's somewhat chequered electoral history since independence. So Musharraf reversed Pakistan's support for the Taleban. Bit late, though, wasn't it, given that Pakistan was one of only three countries to recognise the regime and did little to ameliorate the excesses, even from the beginning- witnesses place Pakistan secret services with the Taleban when the last Afghan leader and his brother were murdered, and left to decorate the lamp posts in Kabul. Now which earlier Pakistani military dictator tried to establish sharia as the new basis for law in Pakistan ? Oh yes, Zia ul-Haq- way back in 1977 when he launched his coup and Islamization programme. And now of course Pakistan has the Babur- a cruise missile with the name of the founder of the Muslim Moghul dynasty in India. I'm sure Delhi finds that mighty reassuring.

molly i was referring specifically to the elections held under Musharaff, not to Pakistans entire history as a state.

And yes, there have been some very bad people in the ISI - notably Hamid Gul. Whom Perv dismissed. AFAICT Perv is trying to purge those people from the ISI, at the risk of his own life.

	12-08-2005 02:09									#96
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Japher ok, Iran is being naughty, can we do something about it yet or should we wait for the UN to do nothing again?

The IAEA passed a resolution saying they need to stop enriching uranium. It passed with the support of Russia AND China, who evidently dont share the fondness of some here for the idea of Iranian nukes. The third world countries got on board when a clause was added reaffiriming the rights of countries to PEACEFUL nuclear programs. So it was unanimous. Didnt give a time limit for referall to the UNSC, but the word is that Iran has till September.

We shall see.

	12-08-2005 10:43									#97
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Im sorry then. Gepap apparently felt that the policies of the EU3, and the proposals to sanction Iran were unfair. Given that the thing is going to the IAEA to discuss referall to the UNSC, I thought sanctions were what we were discussing. I can certainly see many arguements against military action, and have advocated it nowhere in this thread. I cant speak for George Bush. Michael Ledeen, the leading hardline neocon who focuses on Iran in the National Review and elsewhere, does not advocate the invasion of Iran.

As I wrote earlier, there was a Hersh article in the New Yorker in January indicating that some sort of military action (though not a full-scale invasion) is a distinct possibility. In fact, we've been doing some covert recon in Iran to indentify WMD targets. According to Hersh's sources, Rummy et al. are under the delusion that a limited invasion targetting their WMD facilities (they estimate that 3/4 of these facilities can be destroyed in air strikes avoiding population centers, etc.) would shatter "aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy" and precipitate a revolution.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

quote: I was going by your own words here.

I certainly didn't intend any sort of order in the negotiations.

quote: I cant find a specific proposal on the table, but its my sense that the Israelis have always been open to discussing regional disarmament as part of peace talks. If that was your question, Im not sure why you referred to Abdullahs proposal.

As the source I quoted earlier indicates, I think your sense is wrong, i.e. disarmament is not on the table until there is a comprehensive peace. The reason I brought up the Saudi proposal was to point out that a reasonable offer for a comprehensive peace was rejected out of hand.

Again:

quote: Arab states want Israel to give up its nuclear capability as part of comprehensive peace talks. Israel, however, insists that the peace process must be completed before it considers relinquishing its nuclear capability.

http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/2005rc/brief11.htm

quote: I was merely explaining that the political decision to make an alliance of convenience with the MMA hardly makes Perv the equivalent of the Iranian mullahs.

I didn't say that they were equivalent. Just saying that his **** doesn't stink regarding fundamentalism. Remember that the coup occured in the first place partially because Sharif was seen as soft on India regarding Kashmir. But 9/11 (and the associated aid and pressure we have on Perv) changed everything, etc., etc.

	12-08-2005 13:40									#98
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Ad argumentum, not imaginary positions I've never taken, please.

If you claim that if Israel can have them, why not Iran, you claim them to be equivalent in their sense of responsibility and ethical value - The things "nukeworthiness" is judged upon.

	12-08-2005 14:36									#99
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Az quote: Ad argumentum, not imaginary positions I've never taken, please. If you claim that if Israel can have them, why not Iran, you claim them to be equivalent in their sense of responsibility and ethical value - The things "nukeworthiness" is judged upon.

OTOH, if you are asserting some countries have the right of possessing nuclear weapons while others don't, you have a very difficult time of making your case.

	12-08-2005 14:54									#100
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Az quote: Ad argumentum, not imaginary positions I've never taken, please. If you claim that if Israel can have them, why not Iran, you claim them to be equivalent in their sense of responsibility and ethical value - The things "nukeworthiness" is judged upon.

I'm asking questions. Questions which should be asked and answered.


Why develop weapons that are 'NEVER' going to be used ?

Oh, just to threaten. So if Israel can develop weapons of mass destruction that are 'NEVER' going to be used, then why not Iran ?

I'm not claiming or stating anything about the equivalent moral or ethical value systems in either state- and I defy you to find any such statement in my posts.

When I ask a question, that's all I do.

However I do note that Israel has chosen in the past to act in a similar fashion to terrorists- by sending hit teams into sovereign states abroad, and in those sovereign states killing suspected terrorists held responsible by Israel for killing its citizens, in defiance of the law in those states and international law.

Now I happen to think that people who assassinate Israelis abroad or in Israel really can't complain when they get blown up by telephone or car bombs or shot down in the street, but it does make moral or ethical 'holier than thou' positions harder to take.

	12-08-2005 15:34									#101
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Why develop weapons that are 'NEVER' going to be used ?

Never said that they will never be used, but will be used in the most severe cases - And Israel has a proven track record of being very very cautious about their use.

quote: Oh, just to threaten. So if Israel can develop weapons of mass destruction that are 'NEVER' going to be used, then why not Iran ?

not just to threaten, but to also use. Answered above, basically.

quote: I'm not claiming or stating anything about the equivalent moral or ethical value systems in either state- and I defy you to find any such statement in my posts.

It's the only plausible explanation.

quote: However I do note that Israel has chosen in the past to act in a similar fashion to terrorists- by sending hit teams into sovereign states abroad, and in those sovereign states killing suspected terrorists held responsible by Israel for killing its citizens, in defiance of the law in those states and international law.

Upholding International law has little to nothing to do with the ethical value of countries, sadly, since International law is only made relevant when it's in the concensus of all permament Sec. Council members, or a large number of them to consider it so.

quote: Now I happen to think that people who assassinate Israelis abroad or in Israel really can't complain when they get blown up by telephone or car bombs or shot down in the street, but it does make moral or ethical 'holier than thou' positions harder to take.

And I say again that ethical values or positions have little to nothing to do with Intl. law -

We don't despise N.K. for kidnapping Japanese or S.K. citizens - we despise them for being an insane dictatorial regime. We didn't despise Hitler and Nazism for attacking and occupying nations, but for the insane plans he had for said territories. We don't despise Stalin for attacking Finland, but for crushing democracy in the SU, and killing and imprisoning millions.

This is made especially clear in the modern, post-WWII war, with the hypocricy of the sec. council.

	12-08-2005 15:47									#102
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Az Upholding International law has little to nothing to do with the ethical value of countries, sadly, since International law is only made relevant when it's in the concensus of all permament Sec. Council members, or a large number of them to consider it so. quote: Now I happen to think that people who assassinate Israelis abroad or in Israel really can't complain when they get blown up by telephone or car bombs or shot down in the street, but it does make moral or ethical 'holier than thou' positions harder to take. And I say again that ethical values or positions have little to nothing to do with Intl. law -

You can say that, but then you'd just be ignoring international legal agreements that have been around for centuries preceding the concept of the League of Nations, let alone the United Nations.

I take it you've never heard of Grotius, the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, diplomatic immunity...

Grotius:

http://www.san.beck.org/GPJ13-InternationalLaw.html

The Hague Convention:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague05.htm


The Geneva Convention:

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

This without reference to other international laws and agreements not pertaining to war such as international copyright, slavery, child labour, and so on.


Of course ethical values have to do with law- why else have laws against slavery or torture or child labour ?

quote: It's the only plausible explanation.

No, the other explanation is that you brought it up to muddy the waters- to make it seem as though I had claimed that the moral and values systems in Iran and Israel were equivalent.

I hadn't.

	12-08-2005 18:48									#103
	Tired of ads?

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo


As I wrote earlier, there was a Hersh article in the New Yorker in January indicating that some sort of military action (though not a full-scale invasion) is a distinct possibility. In fact, we've been doing some covert recon in Iran to indentify WMD targets. According to Hersh's sources, Rummy et al. are under the delusion that a limited invasion targetting their WMD facilities (they estimate that 3/4 of these facilities can be destroyed in air strikes avoiding population centers, etc.) would shatter "aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy" and precipitate a revolution.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

Its good to have a contingency plan, and certainly to determine how vulnerable the sites are. As for Hersh's sources, I presume they continue to be folks inside CIA who hate Rummy with a passion, and are not above twisting things to put him in the worst possible light. Indeed, they are not above leaking top secret info, in violation of the law. They have not always leaked to Hersh in disagreement with the current admin - they also leaked material some years back justifying the continued holding of Jonathan Pollard. Oddly though, the leaks that make their way to Sy Hersh ALWAYS lean a certain way with regard to middle east politics. Youd think such a widely heralded investigative reporter might OCCASSIONALLY find something that leans in a different direction.


"As the source I quoted earlier indicates, I think your sense is wrong, i.e. disarmament is not on the table until there is a comprehensive peace. The reason I brought up the Saudi proposal was to point out that a reasonable offer for a comprehensive peace was rejected out of hand."


The Saudi Proposal was not a reasonable offer.

http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/2005rc/brief11.htm

My understanding is that the negotiations would go on parallel tracks. Prior to negotiations there initial position is that they would not disarm till a comprehensive peace is reached. Whether, in the course of negotiations, they would agree to earlier disarmament is an unknown.

and profoundly irrelavant, as Iran refuse to negotiate with Israel over anything. Iran continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Iran continues to support and fund terrorists groups that commit terrorist attacks on Israel, and which oppose the peace process. And Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, which would make the destruction of Israel a potential reality. Security against which is to be provided by the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction, with all its questionable assumptions about how the armed forces of an attacked nation would behave after a first strike had destroyed their society - assumptions that were questionable during the cold war, but were good enough due to the caution and fundamental "this worldiness" of the Soviet leaders.

"I didn't say that they were equivalent. Just saying that his **** doesn't stink regarding fundamentalism. Remember that the coup occured in the first place partially because Sharif was seen as soft on India regarding Kashmir. But 9/11 (and the associated aid and pressure we have on Perv) changed everything, etc., etc."

If theyre not equivalent, then this discussion of Pakistan is not particularly relevant here. We can have a long discussion of US-Pakistani relations, or of the dangers from the Pakistani bomb. None of which, IMO, make the question of the Iranian bomb less urgent.

	12-08-2005 18:55									#104
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: You can say that, but then you'd just be ignoring international legal agreements that have been around for centuries preceding the concept of the League of Nations, let alone the United Nations. I take it you've never heard of Grotius, the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, diplomatic immunity... Grotius: http://www.san.beck.org/GPJ13-InternationalLaw.html The Hague Convention: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague05.htm The Geneva Convention: http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html This without reference to other international laws and agreements not pertaining to war such as international copyright, slavery, child labour, and so on. Of course ethical values have to do with law- why else have laws against slavery or torture or child labour ?

I thought we were talking about Intl. law that pertained to relations between nations.

	12-08-2005 18:56									#105
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom However I do note that Israel has chosen in the past to act in a similar fashion to terrorists- by sending hit teams into sovereign states abroad, and in those sovereign states killing suspected terrorists held responsible by Israel for killing its citizens, in defiance of the law in those states and international law.

The 9/11 terrorists bought tickets on transcontinental flights in the US. Ergo, I, who have bought tickets on transcontinental flights in the US, have acted in ways similar to terrorists. I could go on and on. The question is if the action was similar to terrorists in an ethnicall relevant way. Going abroad to kill a suspected terrorist, who is being given effective sanctuary, is NOT equivalent to the deliberate murder of civilians.

In fact under international law, IIUC, said states have a legal obligation NOT to provide sanctuary to terrorists. Unfortunately international institutions dont enforce said law, and so SOME states that are victims of terrorism are forced to act in their own defence. And in general in such actions Israel has acted with great restraint, and every effort to avoid civilian casualties.

	12-08-2005 18:59									#106
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ramo As I wrote earlier, there was a Hersh article in the New Yorker in January indicating that some sort of military action (though not a full-scale invasion) is a distinct possibility. In fact, we've been doing some covert recon in Iran to indentify WMD targets. According to Hersh's sources, Rummy et al. are under the delusion that a limited invasion targetting their WMD facilities (they estimate that 3/4 of these facilities can be destroyed in air strikes avoiding population centers, etc.) would shatter "aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy" and precipitate a revolution. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

So are we going to go, not by stated admin policy, but by an article by a reporter with an agenda, based on unnamed sources, who also have an agenda? If that is the case, would you like to see some equally well sourced material on the connection between Iran and Al Qaeeda?

	12-08-2005 21:58									#107
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom Of course ethical values have to do with law- why else have laws against slavery or torture or child labour ?

I reckon the reason is to protect the citizens of a country. Often laws coincide with ethical behaviour but not always, for example, laws allowing corporations as legal entities, or copyright law, or the US patent law as it is now.

	12-08-2005 22:03									#108
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark The question is if the action was similar to terrorists in an ethnicall relevant way. Going abroad to kill a suspected terrorist, who is being given effective sanctuary, is NOT equivalent to the deliberate murder of civilians.

Both are murders.

A suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Recently we just had a case where an innocent man in the UK was shot dead by trigger happy policemen.

	12-08-2005 22:11									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Both are murders. A suspect is innocent until proven guilty. Recently we just had a case where an innocent man in the UK was shot dead by trigger happy policemen.

I suspect its rather difficult for Israeli operatives to walk into a country like Syria, and arrest a Hamas leader, and take him back to Israel for trial. Of course if Syria were cooperating against terrorism, THEY could arrest him and extradite him.

Israel DID in fact remove Adolph Eichman and take him to Israel for trial, but it was far easier to that in Argentina then it is in Syria.

	12-08-2005 23:35									#110
	Inflate your Upload Space

The same boring, tired, self-serving statements made all the time.

To Israeli posters and supporters: I don;t care if you guys feel threatened. Its that simple. I value no human life anymore than other human life. Can the "they hate us" whines. Israelis want to be a normal state? Then act as one. Please, anyone who thinks Israel is in any danger any longer is smoking some strong stuff, or simply is stuck in self-pity mode for too long. So Iran doesn;t recognize Israel..wow, SO? But of course, point me to the Iranian divisions poised for the Invasion, or the crack Hizbullah strikes teams about to storm Tel Aviv

As for the nature of Iran's regime: how is it any more autocratic, expansionist, aggressive than its nuclear neighbor Pakistan? All the same fears about security forces going rogue and playing with nukes were trot around about Pakistan, yet somehow the Pakistani secret services, while helping the Taliban and AQ, never seemed to have the stomach to give them nukes. And all of a sudden I am to believe that the Revolutionary Guard will? Anyone care to rationalize that bull?

Lets see, the last states to be invaded in the ME by a neighbor were:

Iran, Lebanon, Kuwait.

Wonder then why the Iranians, who seem themselves as a rightfull power in the ME (given their historical power, size, and relative wealth), and suffered hudreds of thousands dead from the invasion of its neighbor, a neighbor that got plenty of passive support, if not active support, from not only the US and Europeans but fellow Arab states, with one nuclear neighbor and another nuclear state within striking range that calls Iran it biggest enemy and regularly talks about attacking it...yeah, I wonder why Iranians might think about a nuclear program. Must be cause they are so evil. .

Iran shouldn;t have nukes.North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, the UK, and the US should not have nukes either.

Simply stated, no one should. A comprehensive global ban would bhe the solution to this crisis, but the hypocratical and self serving states that tried to force the nuclear monopoly on the world, and the handfull of states that for their own reasons refused to sign the deal, won;t ever do it. So why then shall we expect the 190 other states out there, specially the 40 or so that could get nukes, to simply sit back and not have them eventually?

For all the righteous and baseless indignation, the Iranians have every right by the NPT as they signed, to enrich uranium, because they have every right to nuclear power. They broke IAEA regulations by having secret nuclear facilties. Let them be taken to the Security Council for it. And then the Iranians have every right to leave the NPT whenever they want to. That is what the right of national soverignty means. As long as the nuclear h0olders also stanbd of national soverignty, then nuclear proliferation will continue, specially amongst regimes with good reasons for worry.

	13-08-2005 00:03									#111
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap


"The same boring, tired, self-serving statements made all the time."


Speak for yourself.

"to Israeli posters and supporters: I don;t care if you guys feel threatened. Its that simple. I value no human life anymore than other human life. Can the "they hate us" whines. Israelis want to be a normal state? Then act as one. Please, anyone who thinks Israel is in any danger any longer is smoking some strong stuff, or simply is stuck in self-pity mode for too long. So Iran doesn;t recognize Israel..wow, SO? But of course, point me to the Iranian divisions poised for the Invasion, or the crack Hizbullah strikes teams about to storm Tel Aviv "


Ya, know the difficulty of launching a conventional invasion just MIGHT be why they want nukes. Iran of course doesnt just not recognise Israel - KSA, algeria, Pakistan, also dont among others. Iran is unique in its continuing to threaten israels destructions, and its antisemitic rhetoric.

"As for the nature of Iran's regime: how is it any more autocratic, expansionist, aggressive than its nuclear neighbor Pakistan? All the same fears about security forces going rogue and playing with nukes were trot around about Pakistan, yet somehow the Pakistani secret services, while helping the Taliban and AQ, never seemed to have the stomach to give them nukes. And all of a sudden I am to believe that the Revolutionary Guard will? Anyone care to rationalize that bull?"

We have no idea what the ISI might have done if 9/11 had not changed the political equation in Pakistan. However ISI never had the overt control of the Paki govt in the period since Pak acquired nukes that the mullahs have in Iran.

"Lets see, the last states to be invaded in the ME by a neighbor were:

"Wonder then why the Iranians, who seem themselves as a rightfull power in the ME (given their historical power, size, and relative wealth), and suffered hudreds of thousands dead from the invasion of its neighbor, a neighbor that got plenty of passive support, if not active support, from not only the US and Europeans but fellow Arab states,"

at a time when those states feared Iran taking over the gulf states, which was also part of Iranian rhetoric since the revolution, IIRC.

" with one nuclear neighbor and another nuclear state within striking range that calls Iran it biggest enemy and regularly talks about attacking it"

Israel calls Iran its enemy only because Iran threatens Israel with destruction. If Iran doesnt want Israel to consider Iran its enemy, it can easily change this by NOT calling for Israels destruction. Youve really got the cart before the horse here.


"...yeah, I wonder why Iranians might think about a nuclear program. Must be cause they are so evil. . "

They are.

Iran shouldn;t have nukes.North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, the UK, and the US should not have nukes either.

Simply stated, no one should. A comprehensive global ban would bhe the solution to this crisis, but the hypocratical and self serving states that tried to force the nuclear monopoly on the world,"

IIUC this simply mistates the history of the NPT. lots of non-nuclear states, countries like Germany that did NOT want to acquire nukes, supported the passage of NPT and recognized that under cold war conditions it was hard to get total disarmament. Since then the US and Russia have made huge strides in nuclear disarmament. At the same time as they did so, they saw the rise of new nuclear powers, and rogue states. which have complicated matters.


" and the handfull of states that for their own reasons refused to sign the deal, won;t ever do it. So why then shall we expect the 190 other states out there, specially the 40 or so that could get nukes, to simply sit back and not have them eventually?"


Cause thats the treaty, and thats what the world states want. You will note the EU3 included a major nonnuclear power, and that the most recent IAEA vote on Iran was unanimous.

"For all the righteous and baseless indignation, the Iranians have every right by the NPT as they signed, to enrich uranium, because they have every right to nuclear power. They broke IAEA regulations by having secret nuclear facilties. Let them be taken to the Security Council for it. And then the Iranians have every right to leave the NPT whenever they want to. That is what the right of national soverignty means."

National soveriengnty means whatever the actors in world politics choose it to mean. Nuclear weapons didnt exist at the time of Westphalia. They existed at the time the UN Charter was written, but were only in the possesion of the United States. ( I could have the charter signing date wrong)

"As long as the nuclear h0olders also stanbd of national soverignty, then nuclear proliferation will continue, specially amongst regimes with good reasons for worry. "

The Iraqi regime that invaded Iran has been overthrown, and Iraq has new leadership that seems quite willing to live in peace with Iran.

The notion of Israel attacking Iran without provocation, absent Iranian nukes, is absurd.

	13-08-2005 00:06									#112
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark [QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap . "For all the righteous and baseless indignation, the Iranians have every right by the NPT as they signed, to enrich uranium, because they have every right to nuclear power.

it is of course quite possible to have nuclear power without doing your own enrichment, IN fact the EU3 offered Iran an assured supply of nuclear fuel, IIUC.

	13-08-2005 08:22									#113
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Speak for yourself.

Why? I actuaslly make new statements, instead of posting a bunch of relatively irrelevant articles and selectively bolding random bits.

quote: Ya, know the difficulty of launching a conventional invasion just MIGHT be why they want nukes. Iran of course doesnt just not recognise Israel - KSA, algeria, Pakistan, also dont among others. Iran is unique in its continuing to threaten israels destructions, and its antisemitic rhetoric.

Oh, of course, it all makes sense now..the Iranians will invest billions in creating a few nukes simply so that Tehran, a City with twice as many human beings as Israel, can get nuked. I see it all now......

I am sorry, but I find that so utterly absurd as to be laughable. Oh, and given that Iran is one of the few islamic states with a jewish population you can call sizeable left, their anti-semitic actions have seemingly not kept up with their statements fully..

quote: We have no idea what the ISI might have done if 9/11 had not changed the political equation in Pakistan. However ISI never had the overt control of the Paki govt in the period since Pak acquired nukes that the mullahs have in Iran.

We have a damn good clue what they didn;t do before 9/11. Care to explain why the ISI would delay for years not giving their allies WMD tech? We don;t even need to speculate to burry the old canard of groups not directly controlled by a state being simply handed WMD's.

"The Mullahs" have had chemical weapons since the 1980's. For some reason, even given their terrible rhetoric, none of these ended in Hizbullah hands, even though the logistics of giving it to them would not be difficult. Care to explain 15+ years of not giving Hizbullah these weapons, if the Mullah;s really give a **** about Israel?

quote: at a time when those states feared Iran taking over the gulf states, which was also part of Iranian rhetoric since the revolution, IIRC.

So that excuses it? I guess Saddam's usefulness for you ran out and why you backed his removal so heartily...

quote: Israel calls Iran its enemy only because Iran threatens Israel with destruction. If Iran doesnt want Israel to consider Iran its enemy, it can easily change this by NOT calling for Israels destruction. Youve really got the cart before the horse here.

Sorry, but in that relation one sides has nukes and the ability to deliver them, the other does not. You know which is which. Besides, Israel needs boogeyman. Syria doesn;t cut it anymore.

quote: They are.

quote: IIUC this simply mistates the history of the NPT. lots of non-nuclear states, countries like Germany that did NOT want to acquire nukes, supported the passage of NPT and recognized that under cold war conditions it was hard to get total disarmament. Since then the US and Russia have made huge strides in nuclear disarmament. At the same time as they did so, they saw the rise of new nuclear powers, and rogue states. which have complicated matters.

What a bunch of self-serving bull.

Yes, plenty of states have not moved to develop nuclear wepoans of their own, for a great and varied number of reasons. As for "disarmament", the weapons levels at the end of the cold war were absurd and beyond all rational need. Both the US and Russia still have sufficeint strategic weapons and delivery systems to wipe each other out, and both plan for new generations of weapon systems. The nuclerization of South Asia and the handfull of possible NK nukes in no way justifies 3000+ strategic nuclear warheads in the US and Russian arsenals. But if these are the rationalizations you need to make for youself, go right ahead.

quote: Cause thats the treaty, and thats what the world states want. You will note the EU3 included a major nonnuclear power, and that the most recent IAEA vote on Iran was unanimous.

It should have been, as Iran clearly broke NPT rules.

quote: National soveriengnty means whatever the actors in world politics choose it to mean. Nuclear weapons didnt exist at the time of Westphalia. They existed at the time the UN Charter was written, but were only in the possesion of the United States. ( I could have the charter signing date wrong)

So are you backing a weakening of the Westphalia system ?

quote: The Iraqi regime that invaded Iran has been overthrown, and Iraq has new leadership that seems quite willing to live in peace with Iran.

In a couple of years there might not be an Iraq. That does not erase Pakistan from the map though.

quote: The notion of Israel attacking Iran without provocation, absent Iranian nukes, is absurd.

Really?

I agree, it is absurd. As absurd as a first strike by Iran.

	13-08-2005 08:24									#114
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark it is of course quite possible to have nuclear power without doing your own enrichment, IN fact the EU3 offered Iran an assured supply of nuclear fuel, IIUC.

Which is a load of bull. Can you name a single state with a peacefull nuclear program that does not refine any of its own fuel?

Why should Iran give up what everyone else has and place its own nuclear program at the whim of foreign states? Cause LoTM doesn;t like them?

	13-08-2005 10:39									#115
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

On the one hand you don't really nukes to propagate.

On the other hand its a tad hypocritical to not let Iran get nukes.

Which hand must be severed?

	13-08-2005 14:30									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Az I thought we were talking about Intl. law that pertained to relations between nations.

And indeed if you look through the links I posted you will see that they do pertain to legal agreements between sovereign nations in different parts of the world.


Do you think that the United Kingdom would reply to Irish-American funded I.R.A. action on British soil (or elsewhere) by car bombings or assassinations in Boston, Chicago, New York or San Francisco ?

quote: The 9/11 terrorists bought tickets on transcontinental flights in the US. Ergo, I, who have bought tickets on transcontinental flights in the US, have acted in ways similar to terrorists. I could go on and on.

lord of the mark


You could, but it would be a remarkably fatuous comparison, and unworthy of you.

Have you been given government sanction before purchasing said tickets (with government funds) to go abroad and with government funds to rent properties, cars, procure weapons or plant bombs in telephones or cars on the territory of sovereign nations in defiance of their national laws and international law and kill people ?


The Wrath of God hit team were, by the then Israeli government.

quote: In fact under international law, IIUC, said states have a legal obligation NOT to provide sanctuary to terrorists.

lord of the mark


Interesting. The United States took the approach that people accused of being terrorists by the British Government or even wanted for questioning in connection with terrorist activities were entitled to a trial and legal representation, at the very least to determine whether or not they were the people they were alleged to be and if they were in fact terrorists.

Some in America believed (and still believe) that planting bombs on British soil or shooting British soldiers is a 'political' activity. Po Tay Toe, Po Tah Toe, obviously.

Israel just decided that this process was a tad long-winded, did it ?

As I've stated already, if you engage in acts contrary to national and international law that involve the deaths of civilians in pursuit of avowedly 'political' aims, I don't see that you can complain if a government decides to treat you with the same approach, but unfortunately it does sometimes happen that 'accidents' occur:

quote: In Lillehammer, Norway, on 07 January 1974, Mossad agents mistakenly killed Ahmad Boushiki, an Algerian waiter carrying a Moroccan passport, whom they mistook for PLO security head Ali Ahmad Salameh, believed to have masterminded the 1972 massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics [Salameh was killed in a 1979 car-bomb explosion in Lebanon]. Following the attack, the Mossad agents were arrested and tried before a Norwegian court. Five Israeli agents were convicted and served short jail sentences, though Israel denied responsibility for the murder. In February 1996, the Israeli government agreed to compensate the family of Ahmad Boushiki. On 15 November 1995, Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, an Israeli citizen. Following the controversy over the failure of intelligence to protect Rabin, and the embarrassment over the mistaken assassination of a Swedish national, the Director Geneneral of Mossad, known only as 'S', was forced into retirement.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intel...rael/mossad.htm

quote: In July 1973, Raphael joined a hastily assembled team of Mossad agents to track down Ali Hassan Salameh, Black September's operation chief in Europe and thought to be the mastermind of the Munich massacre. In the sedate Norwegian village of Lillehammer, the team gunned down a Moroccan waiter named Ahmed Bouchiki instead of Salameh. Raphael and five other operatives were captured and tried, severely compromising the reputation of the Mossad. Sylvia's botched assassination would prove a prelude to another mistake, this time from the other side. In September 1985, Force 17, a splinter group of the PLO, murdered three Israeli tourists on a yacht off the coastal resort of Larnica in Cyprus. They claimed publicly that the victims were Mossad agents, one of whom was the prized Sylvia Raphael. They believed they had their revenge.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...p=1006953079845


As the old New Wave song goes- 'violence grows, violence grows'.

Now of course, President Bush is saying he wouldn't rule out some form of military action against Iran over its resumption of uranium conversion despite the fact that :

quote: Iran says, correctly, that it is quite entitled to have such a capacity under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime, providing of course its activities are fully monitored and it is seen as behaving properly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4145862.stm


Now which country is it that has cruise missiles, has threatened nuclear capability, has shielded terrorists, abetted Sunni fundamentalists to come to power in a country which then provided a base for terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Centre in New York, is run by a military dictatorship, has an atrocious human rights record and brought back sharia law in 1977(!!!) and has been to war with its neighbour more than once ?


Oh, that's Pakistan.


Sylvia Raphael:

	14-08-2005 00:39									#117
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse brilliant idea to get the US armed forces bogged down in Iraq at a time like this - Pakistan successfully testing nuclear weapons, North Korea and Iran developing them - thank you neocons

	17-08-2005 11:24									#118
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Its good to have a contingency plan, and certainly to determine how vulnerable the sites are.

In what contingency would the plan go into effect? Should we secretly send commandos into North Korea to mark WMD sites?

quote: As for Hersh's sources, I presume they continue to be folks inside CIA who hate Rummy with a passion, and are not above twisting things to put him in the worst possible light. Indeed, they are not above leaking top secret info, in violation of the law.

You realize that there is some distinction between whistle-blowing on operations without Congressional authorization that may lead to another disastrous war, and, say, leaking top secret info soley to smear a whistle blower as certain very powerful member(s) of this Admin have done? Context is important, y'know.

quote: They have not always leaked to Hersh in disagreement with the current admin - they also leaked material some years back justifying the continued holding of Jonathan Pollard. Oddly though, the leaks that make their way to Sy Hersh ALWAYS lean a certain way with regard to middle east politics. Youd think such a widely heralded investigative reporter might OCCASSIONALLY find something that leans in a different direction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "one-sided." Are you trying to tell me that there are PLO spies lurking in the upper echelons of this gov't?

quote: So are we going to go, not by stated admin policy, but by an article by a reporter with an agenda,

Since when has "stated admin policy" had any relation to fact? Incidentally, the Admin has NOT categorically denied that we've been sending troops into Iran (although they denied that we've been sending troops into Iran indentify targets obviously).

quote: based on unnamed sources, who also have an agenda? If that is the case, would you like to see some equally well sourced material on the connection between Iran and Al Qaeeda?

Are you seriously comparing the guy who broke My Lai and Abu Ghraib, probably the best investigative reporter in the country, with the likes of Judy Miller? On what basis do you say that he's careless about his sources?

quote: My understanding is that the negotiations would go on parallel tracks. Prior to negotiations there initial position is that they would not disarm till a comprehensive peace is reached. Whether, in the course of negotiations, they would agree to earlier disarmament is an unknown. and profoundly irrelavant, as Iran refuse to negotiate with Israel over anything.

As I said, my source differs from your account. It may be "irrelevant" but you're the one who brought it up.

quote: Iran continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Iran continues to support and fund terrorists groups that commit terrorist attacks on Israel, and which oppose the peace process.

And has Iran ever provided Hezbollah with chemcial or biological weapons?

quote: And Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, which would make the destruction of Israel a potential reality. Security against which is to be provided by the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction, with all its questionable assumptions about how the armed forces of an attacked nation would behave after a first strike had destroyed their society - assumptions that were questionable during the cold war, but were good enough due to the caution and fundamental "this worldiness" of the Soviet leaders.

If Israel can rely on MAD, what makes Iran's nukes so much more dangerous than Pakistan's?

quote: If theyre not equivalent, then this discussion of Pakistan is not particularly relevant here. We can have a long discussion of US-Pakistani relations, or of the dangers from the Pakistani bomb. None of which, IMO, make the question of the Iranian bomb less urgent.

Pakistan is extremely important. Israel isn't the only nuclear power Iran's worried about. It doesn't help us with the Iranians when Perv announces things like fancy new ballistic missile systems in the midst of this crisis.

Look, there's a clear double standard. Dear Leader refuses to sign the CTBT and we look the other way regarding our allies nuclear programs. Nukes will continue to be extremely popular among the Iranian people until such blatant hypocrisy is addressed. This is not just bleeding heart whining, but a fundamental problem in trying to get Iran to disarm.

	17-08-2005 11:49									#119
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Do you think that the United Kingdom would reply to Irish-American funded I.R.A. action on British soil (or elsewhere) by car bombings or assassinations in Boston, Chicago, New York or San Francisco ?

If the perpetrators of the actions hid in the USA, and the USA would protect them? well, maybe not in the USA - but this has nothing to do with Intl. law.

quote: If Israel can rely on MAD, what makes Iran's nukes so much more dangerous than Pakistan's?

Because Israel and Pakistan have no serious quarrel. Neither do Israel and Iran, really, but Iran always wants to stir **** up - only god knows why.

	17-08-2005 17:35									#120
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Az quote: Do you think that the United Kingdom would reply to Irish-American funded I.R.A. action on British soil (or elsewhere) by car bombings or assassinations in Boston, Chicago, New York or San Francisco ? If the perpetrators of the actions hid in the USA, and the USA would protect them? well, maybe not in the USA - but this has nothing to do with Intl. law. .

Which international law or laws give Israel the right to send agents of the State of Israel to non-belligerent sovereign nations abroad in order to kill citizens of either those states or from other states, in defiance of the law pertaining in those nations or international laws ?


There was presumably a reason why Israel didn't notify the governments of Norway or Italy or France about the activities of its assassination squads.

Note- I'm not saying that terrorists don't have a reasonable expectation of being treated the same way they treat others, but this itself is not legal justification.