Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

kanelli wrote:Concord, don't you agree that the US is more of a threat for using nukes than Iran is? The US has murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki using nukes, and they are currently invading countries under false pretences, like Iraq. They help countries like Israel bomb the snot out of civilians in Lebanon. There are many more examples of misconduct and actions that could be perceived as a threat to the Middle Eastern countries. Who is more dangerous - I ask you honestly? If Israel is worried about getting nuked by Iran, they can avoid any attacks by getting their asses to the negotiation table a.s.a.p. and making some major changes that have been asked of them from the international community and neighbours for years.

Here is the big difference; the USA has nuclear weapons (more than a few) and if it wanted it could use them now as it did once which ended WWII (pacific theater, etc.).

And The USA has over the past 60+ years demonstrated restraint as it has not to use these weapons again. Pretty good record if you ask me. Now if the USA is such and "evil" country what prevents it from sending a nuclear bombs toward, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. It certainly isn't to get "good press" as it doesn't have it anyway. So maybe that should be done! Now we don't know what countries like Iran would do with nuclear weapons and I for one don't really want to find out.

If a goverment or its people condone individual suicide bombers (by using explosive & vests) then perhaps the suicide of a whole country by launching nuclear weapons is a possibility (suicide becuase there would be retailiation for sure and inahilation of the whole country - and radiation for years). May sound far fetched but while would the USA now be the "nice guy"!

Currently the US has had sufficient troops and airpower to conduct military operations in the Middle East without needing to use the nukes. If they decided to attack Iran and thought there were going to be too many American casualties or their resources are stretched too thin, who is to say they wouldn't use a nuke? That is why they nuked Japan... because they didn't want to be drawn into a long ground combat and lose so many troops. If they made that judgement before, who says they can't make that judgement again? And what is with this "pre-emptive" striking that the US likes to use to protect itself. Don't you think that is a dangerous precident? What if Israel decides to make pre-emptive strikes against its neighbours "in case they want to wipe Israel out"? Should Iran be allowed to make pre-emptive strikes on the US or Israel, in case they decided to attack Iran?

kanelli wrote:Currently the US has had sufficient troops and airpower to conduct military operations in the Middle East without needing to use the nukes. If they decided to attack Iran and thought there were going to be too many American casualties or their resources are stretched too thin, who is to say they wouldn't use a nuke? That is why they nuked Japan... because they didn't want to be drawn into a long ground combat and lose so many troops. If they made that judgement before, who says they can't make that judgement again? And what is with this "pre-emptive" striking that the US likes to use to protect itself. Don't you think that is a dangerous precident? What if Israel decides to make pre-emptive strikes against its neighbours "in case they want to wipe Israel out"? Should Iran be allowed to make pre-emptive strikes on the US or Israel, in case they decided to attack Iran?

I think that is the reason it would not be a good idea for Iran to have nuclear weapons? In that case somoene is bound to pull the "nuclear' trigger and as it stands now it is unlikley to be the USA. But it is not bad for them to have that option. When push comes to shove...

Concord - some people argue that Iran is the more mature and civilised nation when comparing the US and Iran. We are talking here about how the nations act towards other countries - i.e. foreign relations / policy.

The argument goes that Iran has not started any wars or attacked another country, other than in response to an invasion by Iraq.

Both countries give support to other countries, including arms.

The argument usually concludes that Iran, on all objective measures, is the party less likely to misuse armaments, and states that it is actually spin and hype that is casting Iran as the 'bad guy'.

The facts though are that Iran is a much more liberal democracy than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, it has a credible government that speaks it's mind and does good in the region. It is not a threat to its neighbours (despite what Israel says) and has enough oil reserves to have some economic independence.

Rhetoric about Iran along the lines that it is a state sponsor of Terrorism ring hollow when the memory of US made bombs falling on Lebanon are fresh in everyone's minds.

Equating desperate measures by suicide bombers to what a government would do if they were military strong is, to be frank, laughable. It's like saying that Tim McVeigh represents the US Government. It's an emotive argument by false analogy.

The ex-President of Iran is currently on tour of the US and is speaking peace (and making a lot of sense) over there. It appears that there are diplomatic avenues being pursued in the States...but we will need to wait and see.


Cheers,
Shafique

Oh, another fact, Iran has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Israel refuses to sign.

Yes, Iran has signed it, and hopefully that means they won't develop nuclear weapons. I don't think they will and hope I am right about that.

I still wouldn't call Iran a more civilised place than most Western countries. I mean, they don't exactly treat their own people well. Canada has quite a few immigrants that fled Iran after being held prisoner for many years and tortured. I'm still really upset that a Canadian woman was arrested for taking pictures and then beaten to death (and possibly raped) in custody. Her name was Zahra Kazemi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahra_Kazemi

shafique wrote:Concord - some people argue that Iran is the more mature and civilised nation when comparing the US and Iran. We are talking here about how the nations act towards other countries - i.e. foreign relations / policy.

The argument goes that Iran has not started any wars or attacked another country, other than in response to an invasion by Iraq.

Both countries give support to other countries, including arms.

The argument usually concludes that Iran, on all objective measures, is the party less likely to misuse armaments, and states that it is actually spin and hype that is casting Iran as the 'bad guy'.

The facts though are that Iran is a much more liberal democracy than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, it has a credible government that speaks it's mind and does good in the region. It is not a threat to its neighbours (despite what Israel says) and has enough oil reserves to have some economic independence.

Rhetoric about Iran along the lines that it is a state sponsor of Terrorism ring hollow when the memory of US made bombs falling on Lebanon are fresh in everyone's minds.

Equating desperate measures by suicide bombers to what a government would do if they were military strong is, to be frank, laughable. It's like saying that Tim McVeigh represents the US Government. It's an emotive argument by false analogy.

The ex-President of Iran is currently on tour of the US and is speaking peace (and making a lot of sense) over there. It appears that there are diplomatic avenues being pursued in the States...but we will need to wait and see.


Cheers,
Shafique

My mistake, I thought we were talking about the possibility of Iran having nuclear weapons and any threats by them (real or perceived) I'll click the search button for that topic

It will take you to this thread Concord. We are still on the same subject.

I think that any country could at some point feel compelled to use nuclear weapons, so that is why none should have them! The US especially, since they have used them before. So far there is no evidence that Iran has developed nukes or certainly will. Also, even if Iran hates Israel, it doesn't mean it will nuke Israel at first opportunity. You can't assume that.

Interesting link kanelli - it shows that a lady photographer was arrested, beaten, tortured and raped and finally killed whilst in custody. It also shows that there were trials for the crime.

You bring up this horrific case as evidence that Iran may not be as 'civilised' as many countries in the West.

I think you are saying that this event is somehow a reflection of status of free-speech, women's rights, prisoner abuse in Iran and that this is worse than many western countries.

You may be right. This may be an example that shows how ruthless and oppressive the Iranian regime is. On the other hand, you may be wrong and this is a crime that is not typical of the regime.

As we are trying to compare Iran with the West, we need to see whether there are any comparable controversial deaths in custody or incidents of torture and murder by governments.

Well, on the deaths in custody - the US and UK (who I know about) have a long list of controversial and suspcious deaths. Continental Europe also has it's own cause celebres in each country. (anyone remember Rodney King?)

On the torture front - renditions and allegations of sending suspects to be tortured in Eastern Europe are a current hot topic of human rights organisations.. a stance which is just as bad as actually torturing people yourself - renditions are basically saying 'we know this is wrong, but we are going to export the problem to 'friends' who will torture on our own behalf'. Another example is Guantanamo Bay - this is torture according to most people.

Therefore, could not a rational person make a good arguement for Iran being more civilised than the USA?

Cheers,
Shafique

Comparing internal human rights record, it is interesting to see what AI say about the Iran and the USA:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/usa-summary-eng

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/irn-summary-eng

Iran has it's problems - and there are human rights abuses there.


However I don't see why Iran would be classified as less civilised than the US - especially, as I have argued, when you look at foreign policy - which is what this thread is about (unless there are concerns Iran will develop a nuclear bomb to use on itself)

Cheers,
Shafique