rmsharpe said:
We've (the U.S.) been setting a good example for thirty years, decreasing the number of warheads, often times unilaterally. Do you believe that Iran or North Korea will disarm simply because the U.S. reduces the nuclear stockpile to zero? If anything, I imagine that would increase their desire for weapons and accelerate any programs they have to gain them.
True but you like everyone else have to follow the NPT, so if there is no evidence of a nuclear program you have little to say, although of course you should have alot to say, I have no porblem with that, the problem is you have to rewrite the NPT to say it, and if it doesn't apply any longer, then you have to make this clear, not that it only applies to one country as it does now.
Who is the aggressor when Iran is the one sending arms to terrorist organizations around the Middle East, or when Iran trains Iraqi "insurgents" to attack American soldiers and Iraqi civilians? Who is the aggressor when Iran's President vows to "wipe Israel off the map?"
You kinda both are when you invade Muslim countries and make threats against countries who are for all you know following NPT. Not that I support Iran but you do need to get a grip on the ins and outs of the UN's remit in this matter. I don't entirely say that you shouldn't posture, but in doing so consider the rhetoric you are encouraging in response, playground politics has never been so apparent in the ME.
This is like blaming the U.S. for causing World War II in Asia because we stopped selling oil to Japan. (By the way, I wouldn't put the idea past some of you.)
No it isn't that's stupid, there not even remotely analogous.
If obedience means a liberal democracy where human rights are respected, I guess I want Iran to be obedient then. A free Iran would not be a danger to the West.
I think that'd be the dream but there's no way you can force it, and when it was in your corner you gave it the means to produce nuclear technology, there is some responsibility there.
If Iran were a free society, the Iranians would be free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not disturb the peace of other nations.
You might want to take that under advisement for your government too.
It was Iran that has caused trouble for the Iranian people; the Ayatollah and the clerics are to blame.
Actually if you look at the history it's agreat deal more complex than just Iran is to blame, try looking at the development of nuclear sites under the Shah, as I said it was you supplying the tech and the facilities, it's a pretty interesting history. And it seems many other countries supplied centrifugal technology too. They didn't wake up one day and have a means to enrich urnaium from a Eureka moment.
I personally think Iran could be very dangerous but then I know from where such danger came, and I can't entirely see that it was all their fault. It doesn't work that way, there is no black and white here.
