Per Glenn Greenwald today... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ran/index.html
Ok, I know there's the whole "Iran is bad and Isreal is good!" thing going on. But how can we possibly demand that X country do something without also demanding Y country do the same, without looking like hypocrites?Iran:
Iran also pledged that within weeks it would allow the inspection of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, announced that he'd head to Tehran to work out the details.Israel
President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.
Because Israel doesn't want to wipe Iran out of existence; while ALL of its neighbors want it dusted. Nukes are its defense.
Not to say our position isn't hypocritical; but it is what it is.
Also, it can never be overstated how much influence $$$$ have in setting policy in Washington. It's a bigoted cliche, but it is true, there are a whole bunch of very wealthy Jews in this country.
AIPAC is as powerful (aka $$$) as any corporation.
Maybe not per se, but lets not act as though there aren't religious zealots in Israel pushing for war just like in Iran.
please, you don't think Israel wants to wipe out the entire Arab middle East? of course they do, but they are smart, and play smart politics. Plus they are perfectly happy at their position now, a superpower that can toy with third world Arab countries.
Iran are some stupid idiots. They need to learn to play world politics. the first step would be to stop saying they wanna wipe out a country.
Israel having nukes allows them to exist.
when did israel use nukes, D?
I'm fine with them having nukes. But why shouldn't their facilities be inspected as well?Israel having nukes allows them to exist.
Actually they are desperate. There's a huge difference. Here is what a partially corrupt regime is looking at:
The majority of Iranians are under 30. They're so young they don't remember the revolution in the 70's. They are the first college educated generation since the revolution. (In the 70's many college educated Iranians chose to leave the country during / after the revolution - it created a serious lack of brainpower in the country and an even bigger generational divide. The majority of people in the country not only youger than 30, they are [much] better educated than their parents.) Since they are college educated, the vast majority are more liberal in their views than both the previous generation and the faction of clerics clinging to power.
And now, thanks to the blatant rigging of an election; all these young Iranians who are much more tolerant towards the west / liberal in their personal / religious views are also disenfranchised. Outside of Israel, Iran had the longest running and cleanest elections in the Middle East until this last election.
Expect the rhetoric of the hard liners to continue to get more strident - that faction of the government is trying to goad Israel / the US into attacking them in a way that will turn public opinion against western reconciliation and have the people rally around the government. This is the hardliners only shot to stay in power. Without it, simple demographics will force them to either become a fully authoritarian regime that has dropped all pretense of real elections, or they will be voted out of office and start to fade from dominance in the religious councils.
(I have my share of disagreements with some of President Obama's policies, but he played the election protest thing about as perfectly as it could have been been played. If you think the crackdown was bad as it was reported, it would have been ten times as brutal if he was openly supporting / encouraging the dissidents.)
Last edited by Mark in Austin; 10-02-2009 at 10:02 AM. Reason: spelling
I don't really see the point. We already know they have nuclear weapons. What are they gonna do? Make them even more destructive?
Keep in mind, if it weren't for a few famous Jewish physicists, WE wouldn't even have nukes.
There's maybe nuclear proliferation to consider.
NB: I'm not aware that's an issue with Israel at all, but since they're not an NPT signatory, it's not checkable.
This was more notable in the OP IMO:
This too:Iran agreed in principle Thursday to ship most of its current stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be refined for exclusively peaceful uses, in what Western diplomats called a significant, but interim, measure to ease concerns over its nuclear program. . . .
Under the tentative uranium deal, Iran would ship what a U.S. official said was "most" of its approximately 3,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Russia, where it would be further refined, to 19.75 percent purity. That is much less than the purity needed to fuel a nuclear bomb.
French technicians then would fabricate it into fuel rods and return it to Tehran to power a nuclear research reactor that's used to make isotopes for nuclear medicine.
Iran was shown the tendency to drag its feet on previous pledges, so these must be taken grano salis, but the pledge to export its enriched uranium for conversion to fuel rods in particular would seem to be a mini-breakthrough.Iran also pledged that within weeks it would allow the inspection of a previously covert uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, announced that he'd head to Tehran to work out the details.
Yes, but we don't have the numbers. We just have to trust that Israel is taking care of their nukes, and not selling them to rogue countries.
I just think it looks bad to demand that Iran give in to nearly all demands while we turn a blind eye towards other countries. Of course, I guess one could legitimately argue that Israel hasn't made as many overt threats as Iran, but it's not like Israel is some peace-loving hippie nation.
The reason I didn't include this was because I'm 99% sure that the majority of conservatives will state something along the lines of, "Sure, they SAY they'll send all of the uranium, but they're probably keeping some somewhere for weaponization!"
Leaving aside Ahmadinejad's earnest and much ballyhooed wish that "the Israeli regime must vanish from from the page of history", what overt threats has Iran actually made?
That isn't to minimize Iran's surrep ious support of Shia nationalists and Hamas and other shady stuff.
For example, when was the last time Iran attacked a neighbor, before the Iran-Iraq war?
The IDF's recent actions in Gaza and Lebanon showed energy, masculine resolve, and the unsentimental application of force.but it's not like Israel is some peace-loving hippie nation.
BTW, was the blockade ever technically lifted in Gaza? I honestly don't know.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-02-2009 at 02:10 PM.
It's a matter of trust.
You're willing to wholeheartedly trust a country? One with nukes, no less?
What would we inspect for? We wouldn't be worried about them making weapons grade material would we?
After all the terror the islamic world had directed at hindus, jews, christians, animasts around the entire world let's not pretend you have a leg to stand on.
At the least, we could ensure how many they had. As well, it would look better on us internationally if we held countries to the same standard, I feel.
[QUOTE=LnGrrrR;3718982]Per Glenn Greenwald today... http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ran/index.html
Ok, I know there's the whole "Iran is bad and Isreal is good!" thing going on. But how can we possibly demand that X country do something without also demanding Y country do the same, without looking like hypocrites?[/QUOTE
Stupid thread ...lame ass apoligists
No, but there are acceptable comfort levels. I can count on one hand the people I would trust with my life. Why would I trust a country?
Thanks for this stirring analysis. I can always count on you to provide insightful rebuttal.
Insight you're not intrested in anything other than trying to legitamize a ing lunatic and trying to pose as the voice of reason '"elavating the discussion" with a ing nutjob.Your about as intrested in a sincere analysis as Jane Fonda or John Kerry you're a poser.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
