The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

sabang

I suppose many people would share those reservations stroller but, assuming they are agreeable to working with the IAEA as they have stated (and complied with), the alternatives seem a whole lot less palatable.
In practise, every country that has 'gone nuclear' has done so through howls of disapproval, but when it's all said and done little changes except they are now part of the 'club', and don't want anyone else to get nukes.

__________________
To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.

machangezi

I thought the original plan's to take it through Afghanistan-northern Pakland-Indian sea and all the way to the US?

__________________
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." Samuel P. Huntington


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Boon Mee

'Dozens died in Syria-Iran missile test'

"Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria."

But that's cool - we should just let 'em go ahead and have Nukes/WMD's...they surely wouldn't use 'em on the west or Israel, right?... heh

Link

__________________
ผมเป็นคนบ้านนอก

sabang

^ Syria has had chemical weapons for many years though booner.


I thought this article from the Guardian was pretty good. Good paper actually- I seem to get a fair bit of suff from here:-

Tehran's misguided defiance

Propelled by sabre rattlers on both sides, Iran and the west are hurtling towards confrontation.

Simon Tisdall

Asked in Tehran earlier this year about the possibility of a US military strike on Iran, a senior official laughed out loud. "Are you serious?" he asked. "They will never attack us. That would be madness." His amusement was genuine - and chilling.

Ignorance and complacency about American motivations and intentions abound in equal measure in the land of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Uniquely among the countries of the world, Iran has been almost entirely cut off from US cultural, social and economic influence since the Islamic revolution of 1979.

This semi-voluntary, semi-imposed isolation is changing as an ever more youthful population reaches out to the west. And long-held certainties are fading that the US, having behaved so injuriously towards Iran during the Shah's time, would not dare do so again. Local media have been agog with speculation that Israel's US-approved air raid inside Syria earlier this month was aimed obliquely at Iran.

All the same, old political habits die hard. Mr Khamenei, an instinctive conservative of the Khomeini school, told worshippers at Friday prayers that the US was fighting a losing "psychological war" against Iran. "America's power in the region is waning those who attack the Revolution even in the capacity of a mighty power such as America are facing defeat day by day." His words were greeted with ritual chants of "Death to America".

In similar vein, Mr Ahmadinejad this week shrugged off the sternest warning yet by any European government that the stalemate over Iran's nuclear programmes was leading to catastrophe. "We do not take these threats seriously," he said, referring to the French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner's remarks about a possible war. Britain's sober view that Mr Kouchner had merely stated the obvious appears to have been dismissed, too.

Given that Iran is facing a possible third round of UN sanctions, a US-orchestrated international business and trade boycott, and rising, indirect military pressure, Mr Ahmadinejad's insouciance inspires alarm rather than confidence. It begs the question as to exactly what will it take for the Iranian leadership to grasp the seriousness of the threat it faces.
Yet a crucial consideration in the unfolding Iranian tragedy is that divisions within the Bush administration, and between the US and EU countries, over how best to pursue a diplomatic solution are actually encouraging Iran's false sense of security.

What Tehran, fatefully, appears not to understand is that the longer these western splits persist and the further Iran's nuclear activities advance unchecked, the more likely that, exasperated, out of time and egged on by vice-president Dick Cheney and Israel, George Bush will opt for force.

As the pressure builds remorselessly, attempts to keep the diplomatic process on track seem to be failing. Mr Kouchner's tough words provoked Germany into publicly advocating a much softer line this week under which, Berlin said, new sanctions might not be needed at all. Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN's nuclear weapons chief, whose latest, self-propelled inspections pact with Tehran has deeply angered the US and Britain, also waded in, warning the west's whole policy was spinning out of control.
Russia and China, playing strategic power games of their own, have meanwhile once again underscored their opposition to any talk of force, or to additional sanctions outside the ambit of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Their stance is bringing ever closer an Iraq-style split in the UN security council - a split that far from benefiting Tehran, could doom it to a military attack.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, having fluttered uncertainly between hawks and doves since taking over from Colin Powell, now appears to have belatedly recognised the danger of another unplanned, disastrous Middle East conflagration. With the Pentagon's discredited chief, Donald Rumsfeld, no longer around to block her, and backed by his successor, Robert Gates, she is mounting another effort, beginning on Friday in Washington, to knock security council heads together and rebuild a consensus on diplomatic action.

Hers is an uphill task, as noise levels rise and calmer voices are shouted down both in the west and in Iran. Mr Cheney and the neocons, Israeli hawks and ideologues, Arab states terrified of Iran's expanding regional power, and Iran's complacent, uncomprehendingly hardline leaders are now coming together in an unholy coalition of the willing - and chilling.
Their shared destination is confrontation, their common cause is fear. They all believe, without a shadow of doubt, that they are right, and they may take some stopping now.

Comment is free: Tehran's misguided defiance

Seems the commentator considers a higher chance of an attack on Iran than myself.

Milkman

Obviously there is a motivation for a nation-state to have a nuclear weapon or weapons.

It's the ultimate detractor from foreign aggression and/or invasion. And yes, Iran is aware that it has what many other nations want and need: oil

Even a couple of Canadian MPs noted the desire to have nukes. Canada has large oil deposits in the sands.

The country Canada is concerned about? The United States.

This is a good argument. A very good argument.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

_____________

raycarey

^ it's a fantastic point. even gen abizaid (US commander in the ME) knows it would be for defensive purposes.

additionally, there is no direct evidence that iran is developing nuclear weapons.
none.
if someone on this board has evidence that the IAEA, the UN or the CIA is unaware of, please come forward......hold on now, not everyone at once. no pushing....

but considering the aggressive nature of it's neighbors---US controlled iraq and afghanistan, and israel---why shouldn't iran be able to defend itself with those very same weapons?

and finally, even when iraq used chemical weapons against iran back in the 80s, iran did not respond in kind...even though it was capable of doing so, and easily could have argued that they were withing their rights.

stroller

That's a striking similarity to the situation before the Iraq invasion - remember those "WMD"s - and yet there are still people advocating to attack Iran now.

Butterfly

GW Bush has no political capital to engage in any conflict, it will be suicidal for him to do it, but again him being a drydrunk and a crackhead, he might do it.

However, Tony the lapdog is gone, but he might have found a new one, Sarko, who would be more than happy to suck his cock to replace Tony the other cocksucker.

keda

Can't see GWB has any intention to invade Iran or order surgical strikes for that matter. If strikes are deemed necessary the Israelis will do it.

sabang

^ I think the same way, although i think it would be lunacy.
According to some analysts, the recent Israeli air raid on Syria was really intended as a shot across the bow for Iran.

chinthee

There do seem to be two alternate theories here:

1. The Israelis will do it, and the US will maintain distance from the initial decision and then later join the effort once underway, perhaps with both France, Germany and others. This would deflect mass condemnation of yet another US led attack. Might be strategically the best option for Washington.

2. The US will lead the attack, take the flak, Israel may get attacked and use that opportunity to join the fray with a vengeance, creating a multi-pronged attack. This will be harder on the US in terms of image, but I believe Washington has the will to do this at some "drop dead point."

Where is this drop dead point, where the attack will happen regardless? We don't know.

stroller

Just as a sidenote: Germany will not join any offensive military actions. They'd only join an UN mission with a peacekeeping emphasis.

chinthee

^ Yes, you're right.

raycarey

quite a few cyber generals on here posting about 'multi-pronged attacks' and 'surgical strikes'.

very impressive indeed.


by the way, why haven't any of our resident generals responded to this open call for evidence?

Butterfly

another bad faith act from the US

BBC NEWS | Americas | US blocks Iran leader 9/11 visit

keda

1. The US cannot distance itself and will be roundly criticised by the howlers even if keeps mum, for allowing it, and or for not presuring Israel for restraint.

2. If the US leads or unilaterally attacks Iran, Israel still gets the flack because as we are told the US is one of the global djooish proxies. Also, the US doesn't need Israeli firepower, so it's unlikely that Israel would be party to an attack on Iran in concert with the US.

I thought the drop dead point was breached a long while back, but of course that could be my radical intolerance of Islamic terrorism.

raycarey

did it prompt you to join the military?

stroller