Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

kanelli wrote:Call whoever you want Zionist or whatever terms you like to use, but the BASIC HUMAN FACT REMAINS - the Israelis/Jews all over the world don't deserve to be wiped off the planet.

True...

They deserve much worse.

Are you a jew lover?

I love all human beings Liban. I'd even protect you if a group of people wanted to slaughter you.

Here is another excerpt from the article I posted previously - http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics ... uclear.asp

The Right to Have Nuclear Weapons?

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), every country does have a right to nuclear development for peaceful purposes (i.e. nuclear energy). The fear is that countries may use this as a guise for weapons development. This is what the Bush Administration has been concerned about in the Iran example.

More fundamentally, if (as also noted further above) powerful countries, such as the US itself, are pursuing nuclear weapons options (defying various nuclear non proliferation treaties in the process), this raises arguments that many have made in the past, such as:

* Surely others have a right to develop nuclear weapons as well?
* Why should only a few powerful countries have them?
* Won’t they use their position to pressure or bully other countries to their interests?

North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel, for example (and possibly Iran, depending on how things progress) would seem to directly or indirectly support these questions for their own interests.

The right to nuclear weapons will be an attractive argument for those who feel threatened by the current world powers, or for those with more ambition. Furthermore, the world’s foremost nuclear powers appear unwilling to provide sufficient help. Some, such as the US, appear to reverse and actually develop more weapons, citing reasons such as fear and mistrust of others.

In that context, it would be hard to argue against other countries also demanding such terrible weapons. The US may even find it will have to accept that others will want nuclear weapons too, as they will recycle these same concerns, often back towards the US, adding the charge of hypocrisy if the US opposes them.

Perhaps in the ideal sense most citizens in the world would like to see all countries give up their nuclear weapons, but in the world of real-politik, that would seem suicidal. The arms race fear seems hard to avoid.

kanelli wrote:I love all human beings Liban. I'd even protect you if a group of people wanted to slaughter you.

Awwwww

You may awwwwwww Liban

But thats what separates the likes of K , myself and millions of others from the like of you. Its called compassion.

Liban wrote:

kanelli wrote:Call whoever you want Zionist or whatever terms you like to use, but the BASIC HUMAN FACT REMAINS - the Israelis/Jews all over the world don't deserve to be wiped off the planet.

True...

They deserve much worse.

Liban you give a horrible impression of Islam. In Islamic literature the Jews of Arabia tried to assasinate the prophet Muhammad multiple times and he never acted but with justice and compassion towards them. Liban what you say on this forum just helps the people who portray islam as a violent religion rather than a religion of peace and compassion. grow up.

Well said Maaad.

Sorry Kanelli, I didn't spot your question about whether Iran should be 'allowed' to have nuclear weapons.

Allowed by whom is a question that the world is increasingly asking. A nation or a person is judged by both actions and words. What one does when one is a position of authority or strength shows the rest of the world where your values lie. When you have the power to act with justice when it will go against your national interest, then you will have the moral authority to dictate to others or seek to impose justice on others.

I saw an interview with an Indian minister on British tv around the time that they tested their first nukes - he made an interesting point. Why should an ancient civilisation such as India with people in power who are no intellectual light-weights be viewed as less responsible than the current nuclear powers - China, US, Britain, France, Israel, North Korea etc. ?

Is there not some superiority complex going on that looks down on 'foreigners' and says that they are less civilised than the 'West'?

Who has actually used nuclear weapons? Who used them twice? People have pointed above that the US invades other countries with alacrity - overthrowing democracies when it doesn't suit their needs. It was responsible for the installation of the Ba'ath party in Iraq - sending in the young Sadaam Hussein to assasinate the king - , the invasion of Grenada, the kerfuffle in Nicaragua etc etc.

So now lets turn to Iran and compare them with the other nuclear powers.

Iran is an ancient civilisation and is a democracy. Iran has broken no international laws. Iran does not kow-tow to the US.. So, some ask, is it only the 'friends' of the US that can have nuclear weapons? Or is the experience of N Korea one that says if you have them, you do not need to fear invasion and you have free reign to oppress your people??

I therefore take exception to Kanelli's question about whether Iran should be 'allowed' nuclear weapons. On one level it is a red herring - best estimates are that this is a few years away in any case. There is no threat and no one really believes they will use them against Israel. Assured mutual anhilation is an effective deterrent and the arguments that somehow those in power who have 'brown' skins won't be as 'civilised' as the US and USSR at the height of the cold war is laughable at best and inherently racist and ing at worst.

Rhetoric is one thing - French and Italian leaders have spouted offensive and xenophobic utterances in the past few years, but no one characterises the whole of France or Italy as being idiots!

Iran are saying they are not developing nuclear weapons - fact. Iran has not broken any international laws thus far - fact. Iran is allowed to develop nuclear technology for fuel - fact.

Should we get to the stage that Iran will iminently be in a position to develop nuclear weapons, do I think they should be allowed? Why not? I don't see them being a greater threat than say Pakistan - rhetoric about Israel notwithstanding. The president does not have death wish for his country and questioning whether Israel should exist is not a sign of madness or a sign of bloodlust and suicidal tendencies. It is a view that he holds and that many in the region hold - mostly because of the people that have displaced and disadvantaged by the creation of Israel in their eyes.

I think that the leadership of Iran is much more enlightened that that of Pakistan or North Korea (or Zimbabwe, Burma etc etc)

Therefore, I would turn the question back to kanelli and others and ask for detailed reasoning why Iran shouldn't be allowed to pursue it's currently legal nuclear development without the sabre rattling coming from Washington? Do you think Iran is less responsible than the US - why do you think this?

Food for thought, I hope.

Wasalaam,
Shafique[/quote]

shafique wrote:Is there not some superiority complex going on that looks down on 'foreigners' and says that they are less civilised than the 'West'?

That is a stereotype, and besides who are the foreigners and who is the West? People from Western countries can be foreigners in other Western countries, and people from non-Western countries are not necessarily treated like foreigners in some Western countries.

I'm looked down on here in the UAE because I'm a white Western female who doesn't wear completely baggy clothes or cover her hair. Many men think that I am a fairy and immoral because I am not Muslim and all Western girls are "easy".

So, if there are some foreigners looked down on in a country, shouldn't we say it is a wider phenomenon that only in the West?

shafique wrote:I therefore take exception to Kanelli's question about whether Iran should be 'allowed' nuclear weapons. On one level it is a red herring - best estimates are that this is a few years away in any case. There is no threat and no one really believes they will use them against Israel. Assured mutual anhilation is an effective deterrent and the arguments that somehow those in power who have 'brown' skins won't be as 'civilised' as the US and USSR at the height of the cold war is laughable at best and inherently racist and ing at worst.

Take exception all you like, but there is a nuclear non-proliferation treaty to stop further development of nuclear arms. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the cold war between US and USSR was enough to scare the world into taking measures to stop such a thing from happening again. Are they wrong?

It is my opinion that NO ONE SHOULD HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. I'm aware that the US and other countries are flouting the treaty, but that doesn't let Iran off the hook either.

As far as I know, no one has ever said that the "brown skins" won't be as civilised as the US and USSR when possessing nukes. Sorry, but we've all heard far too many Muslim Arabs talking about killing some Jews. Forgive people for thinking that one day they might actually act on their words. Genocide is not new to the planet, and all threats should be taken seriously. Besides, who said that the US and USSR are necessarily that civilised anyway - at least in some regards, like military and justice.

shafique wrote:Iran are saying they are not developing nuclear weapons - fact. Iran has not broken any international laws thus far - fact. Iran is allowed to develop nuclear technology for fuel - fact.

I agree with your facts. Let's see if Iran truly does stop at nuclear power generation and not push further to nuclear weapons development. There has been intelligence gathering that says they do intend to develop nukes. The intelligence can be wrong, but still the world shouldn't ignore all intelligence just because it MIGHT be wrong.

Again, if Iran are not developing nuclear weapons, they should let the inspectors in.

If Iran wants to give everyone the middle finger, just like the US did when invading Iraq, then they will have to face the consequences, just as the US will. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Kanelli, Iran are not signatories to the nuclear non proliferation treaty, as I understand it. They have said they are not developing nuclear weapons.

Where's the beef? I mean, where exactly is the concern?

I've not seen any 'inteligence gathering' saying they are developing nuclear weapons? I've seen reports that say IF they wanted to, then this is still 2 year s away. So I repeat, what is the fuss? What is it based on?



Wasalaam,
shafique

Shaf, I always enjoy discussing with you

I know that Iran aren't signatories - but they should be! I'm saying that other countries who are signatories ARE concerned. This was to answer your question about Iran being "allowed" to develop nuclear weapons. Many countries and citizens around the world do not want to allow ANY country to develop nukes.

I found a discussion transcript online that helps to answer some questions about Iran and nuclear weapons plans. Well, basically, the conclusion is that it isn't known for sure. This is old too, from 2004. (/me tries to dig up more current info. that is good.)

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei speaks with Margaret Warner about Iran's alleged nuclear proliferation program and the international nuclear threat.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/internat ... _3-18.html

So, if the US does too much sabre rattling at this point, yes it does seem suscpicious in light of the fact that no strong evidence has come out that Iran does have set plans and is close to the goal.

Some people seem to think that just because other countries have nukes, and the US is hypocritical it helps justify why Iran should have the right to develop nukes. This is what I disagree with.

Hey Shaf, no one seems to be touching your earlier post about what the divided Middle East would do if there was a nuclear threat from US and/or Israel.

Kanneli, I enjoy discussing with you as well.

I too have noted the deafening silence on the other points

I always try and look beyond rhetoric and see what is happening to people on the ground and see what is actually affecting them. I hate the stereotyping of any people. I also have an inherent distrust of nuclear weapons and think the world would be a better place without them...

As to the protestations about Iran, the words from Hamlet "methinks the lady doth protest too much" spring to mind. I had similar reservations before the Iraq invasion (take II, "this time it's personal") - which were proved entirely correct.

I haven't been able to dismiss the argument that the US will not allow the petrodollar to be threatened and that the economic forces are driving these moves. It's not the control of oil - the US has massive reserves (depending on what study you read) - but the link of oil prices to the dollar and therefore artificially propping up the US economy.

Just my 2 cents worth - in full knowledge that I haven't the power to do anything but watch events unfold..

Wasalaam (Peace),
Shafique

In the article I posted earlier it mentions the fact that the US seems keen on the idea of pre-emptive strikes since the events of 9/11, and there isn't any international law regarding a country using pre-emptive strikes. It is very scary to think that the US could make false accusations against yet another country as justification to make a pre-emptive attack, meanwhile there are other hidden motives behind the actions.

I can't handle it if it happens again. I wouldn't want to sit back and watch events unfold, but it is true - the US really holds the economic and military power.

The US could be using their power and influence to do good things, but sadly this hasn't been the case in recent years.

Interesting point K, in particular your reference to "hidden motives".

The film "13 Days" about the Cuban missile crisis was indicative of the hidden agenda motive.

There is one point in the film where it portrayed Kennedy, his advisors and all the heads of the various military forces.

It showed the arguements put forward by "the military" for a pre-emtive strike basically down to the fact that they really only wanted to "play with their toys" as a justification for attack.

As we all know Kennedy stood his ground and the rest is history. But it makes you wonder "what if", had Kennedy been a weaker and more easily led type leader.

Interesting point - I'm not a lawyer so don't know about pre-emptive strikes not being against international law.

However, I would have thought that bombing a foreign territory is something that is covered under international law and that just calling it a 'pre-emptive strike' doesn't make it into a legal action? Who gets to say what is pre-emptive or not?

I guess you've also uncovered another advantage of being religious - we get to pray to God and that does remove that 'helpless' frustration from these types of situation.

Wasalaam,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Interesting point - I'm not a lawyer so don't know about pre-emptive strikes not being against international law.

However, I would have thought that bombing a foreign territory is something that is covered under international law and that just calling it a 'pre-emptive strike' doesn't make it into a legal action? Who gets to say what is pre-emptive or not?

I guess you've also uncovered another advantage of being religious - we get to pray to God and that does remove that 'helpless' frustration from these types of situation.

Wasalaam,
Shafique

You'd think there would be a law already since it has been some time since the whole Iraq fiasco. (The Taleban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan I have no problem with because they had terrorist training camps that had to go, and the 9/11 attacks happened first.)

Well, the US already defined pre-emptive as meaning "hit them first so they don't hit you". The problem with this is any country can use such a loose definition to attack another country for whatever reason (especially with cooked intelligence) Talk about chaos!

Faith is definitely a positive and comforting thing for many people.

Sorry I missed your post arniegang. I haven't seen the movie, but yes - I'm certainly glad that Kennedy was not a weaker man.