Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

[JohnRM]

Any nation developing nuclear weapons is a threat. I could very well believe that Iran's nuclear program has peaceful intentions if it were not for the fact that they had been hiding it for so many years and are still being incredibly secretive about it. A nuclear program intended purely for peaceful uses has no need for secrecy. The only purpose of concealment is to protect military applications. Of course, this in itself does not prove that the program is military in nature, but the rest of the world can only safely assume that it is, and act, before any potential for weaponization is realized. If Iran were to just open itself up to oversight from the international community, we could settle the issue today.

 

[Verbose]

Any nation developing nuclear weapons is a threat. I could very well believe that Iran's nuclear program has peaceful intentions if it were not for the fact that they had been hiding it for so many years and are still being incredibly secretive about it.

Up to that point the description has an uncanny resemblance to the Israeli case as well.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Any nation developing nuclear weapons is a threat.

Is that right? Then why are you ignoring the worst rogue state of all, and the greatest danger to international peace in the world today. from continuing to develop nuclear weapons? Where is your moral outrage over Pakistan and India having them, much less the US, UK, and France?

I could very well believe that Iran's nuclear program has peaceful intentions if it were not for the fact that they had been hiding it for so many years and are still being incredibly secretive about it.

Do you think that might be because Israel has a habit of illegally attacking sovereign countries which possess peaceful nuclear facilities, much less assassinating their scientists?

 

[JohnRM]

Is that right? Then why are you ignoring the worst rogue state of all from continuing to develop nuclear weapons? Where is your moral outrage over Pakistan and India having them, much less the US, UK, and France?

Hold on, I know I have it around here somewhere. *Feels around his pockets for his outrage*

Oh! Here it is. I left them in the pants that I wear when we're talking about those other countries and not Pakistan, India, the US, UK, or France.

So, here it is.

Spoiler John's Moral Outrage :

Pakistan; I've been very critical and am more concerned with those weapons than I am about Iran having nuclear weapons, at the moment, but there isn't anything to be done, at the moment.

India; Not quite as concerned as I am about Pakistan or Iran, but, and even though they did not sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, I do indeed condemn their development of nuclear weapons. It is a bit understandable, given that they are flanked by Pakistan and a nuclear-armed China.

US, UK, France: They are no longer developing nuclear weapons, but rather maintaining those that they've already got. Regardless, I'd like to see those numbers diminish. I can't really give any of them hell for it, because they are, in fact, reducing the number of weapons.

Russia: Despite the fact that you haven't mentioned them, I want to cover all my bases. I want their weapons to be reduced, as well, and they are in that process.


Look, if I could snap my fingers and make all nuclear weapons disappear along with the ability to ever produce one again, I would, in a heartbeat. I can't do that. I can't see a way to get rid of those that Pakistan or India have. I can't see a way to get rid of Israel's weapons. I know that we CAN prevent Iran from ever obtaining one. I'll settle for that, right now.

 

[Formaldehyde]

As you pointed out, the Genie is already out of the bottle. And Iran having nuclear weapons will likely stop rogue states like Israel and the US, whih actually do commit real atrocities instead of perceived ones, from committing even more.

 

[Tee Kay]

As you pointed out, the Genie is already out of the bottle. And Iran having nuclear weapons will likely stop rogue states like Israel and the US, whih actually do commit real atrocities instead of perceived ones, from committing even more.

Perceived atrocities like repression of free speech and execution of dissidents?

 

[NedimNapoleon]

I think this is a bluff, If Iran truly has Nukes, do you think that Israel or the US would try to attack them, they would be risking there nations survival and safety?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Perceived atrocities like repression of free speech and execution of dissidents?

No, actual widescale atrocities like illegally invading and occupying a sovereign country on the basis of lies and deceit while massacring hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And let's not forget covertly supporting Iraq during their 8-year-long attempted subjugation of Iran.

 

[TheAlamo]

Any nation developing nuclear weapons is a threat. I could very well believe that Iran's nuclear program has peaceful intentions if it were not for the fact that they had been hiding it for so many years and are still being incredibly secretive about it. A nuclear program intended purely for peaceful uses has no need for secrecy. The only purpose of concealment is to protect military applications. Of course, this in itself does not prove that the program is military in nature, but the rest of the world can only safely assume that it is, and act, before any potential for weaponization is realized. If Iran were to just open itself up to oversight from the international community, we could settle the issue today.

We kinda proved in Iraq that inspections don't mean anything if there is any discrepancy between what they report and what we want to believe.

 

[amadeus]

Do you think that might be because Israel has a habit of illegally attacking sovereign countries which possess peaceful nuclear facilities, much less assassinating their scientists?

And thank God that they do. Do you really think a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein would have been a good idea?

 

[Oishi]

And thank God that they do. Do you really think a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein would have been a good idea?

It depends if Saddam wants to nuke every nook and cranny of this god damn world.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And thank God that they do. Do you really think a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein would have been a good idea?

I certainly don't see it being any worse than a nuclear-armed Reagan, GWB, and most of all, Netenyahu.

 

[Tani Coyote]

It depends if Saddam wanted to nuke every nook and cranny of this god damn world.

Fixed. He's obviously not a problem anymore... unless we're talking afterlifes now.

I think Amadeus' point though, was that dictators shouldn't have nukes. It doesn't matter if they're crazy enough or not to use them: they threaten the First World's interest, they make their nation look ever more dangerous(with the resulting sanctions/imposition of suffering that soooo many seem to hate), and finally, it makes it near impossible to remove said dictator in the event it becomes necessary. Once you have your finger on the button, the world - or at least everybody without nukes themselves - must inevitably appease you.

Never mind that while THEY might not use it, a nuclear state may not be above sharing nukes with others...

 

[amadeus]

It depends if Saddam wants to nuke every nook and cranny of this god damn world.

Why would that matter?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think Amadeus' point though, was that dictators shouldn't have nukes.

Ah, it's just dictators who shouldn't have nukes. If you are nutjob like Reagan, GWB, or Netenyahu it's perfectly fine because a majority supposedly elected?

And Iran has an elected government. Or are you claiming that it is the Ayatollah who is the dictator here who threatens Christian /Jewish world peace with his horrible judgement and lack of common sense?

and finally, it makes it near impossible to remove said dictator in the event it becomes necessary.

You mean it makes it much more difficult to topple a sovereign country which is continally threated by the far-right for merely practicing a different relgion than they do?

 

[Oishi]

dictators shouldn't have nukes.

Then what will they use to protect themselves against a certain country that spreads freedom, equality and liberty through war?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Ah, it's just "dictators" who shouldn't have nukes. But I guess you forgot that Iran has an elected government.

So did Rome.

Both are illiberal democracies. Iran in particular screens its candidates and actively suppresses opposition. It has a closed circle of power. Democracy is, for all intents and purposes, a charade.

I'd say rule by a supreme, practically unchecked religious leader also qualifies pretty well as a "dictatorship." Or at least, an authoritarian nation, where the only limits on power is the body that appoints/dismisses the Supreme Leader.

You mean it makes it much more difficult to topple a sovereign country which is continally threated by the far-right for merely practicing a different relgion than they do?

Come now. You're better than that.

That is not what I'm advocating here. I couldn't care less what religion a nation practices.

I do think, however, that active threats to world peace need to be dealt with accordingly; a nuclear armed state with no constitutionally-limited government is a damned good example of this. One can call the USA a "danger to world peace," yes, but we're a liberal democracy that isn't ruled by religious fundamentalists, and the fact our government doesn't actively oppress us all automatically puts us miles ahead of despots like those in some other nations.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to export democracy and liberties to all these other nations, however. And I mean actual exportation, not half-assing it by invading a poorly-developed nation and expecting the impoverished population to sustain a democracy.

Then what will they use to protect themselves against a certain country that spreads freedom, equality and liberty through war?

They pray to God and hope for the best. Sorry, but if we're going to commit to nuclear disarmament, that means nobody else can build them either.

Also, do you really want to allow states like Iran to hold Middle Eastern states hostage? Or any other state to hold their neighbors hostage? Sure, they won't attack Europe or the USA because of MAD. But what about all the less-fortunate nations in missile range that have no nuclear deterrent of their own?

Bam. You've got the same problem you criticise the USA for: not being able to protect against a nuclear-armed state.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: developing anti-missile technology is a far morally-superior means of dealing with Iran and all other wannabe-powers; what use are nuclear weapons if they'll be shot down mid-flight?

 

[Oishi]

They pray to God and hope for the best. Sorry, but if we're going to commit to nuclear disarmament, that means nobody else can build them either.

Also, do you really want to allow states like Iran to hold Middle Eastern states hostage? Or any other state to hold their neighbors hostage?

So God will descend from the heavens to stop a nuclear war. Uh, yeah. There's almost zero chance of that happening.

Iran will unlikely hold a middle eastern country hostage because of their devotion to their religion. If it's going to happen, then almost every Muslim in the world will hold a grudge against Iran and their population will riot against the government. I think Ahmadinejad wouldn't like that to happen. Also, if a neighbor of yours is building nuclear weapons, then why not follow the trend?

 

[Formaldehyde]

So did Rome.

Both are illiberal democracies. Iran in particular screens its candidates and actively suppresses opposition. It has a closed circle of power. Democracy is, for all intents and purposes, a charade.

You mean like the US, which didn't allow women to vote until the 1933 and blacks to vote in the South without hassle up until 1965? Or like Israel who treats anybody who isn't a Jew like a second class citizen while maintaining the "charade" of a free election by ensuring they are never outnumbered by Muslims?

I'd say rule by a supreme, practically unchecked religious leader also qualifies pretty well as a "dictatorship."

I'd say that supreme, practically unchecked rule by far-right religious crackpots is just as bad, if not worse, especially given the amount of relative power they all have.

Come now. You're better than that.

That is not what I'm advocating here. I couldn't care less what religion a nation practices.

You are not, but many are. Furthermore, the vast majority of the people who share these views are hardly liberals.

I do think, however, that active threats to world peace need to be dealt with accordingly...

Apparently not, since I have yet to see you complain about what is by far the greatest threat to world peace in existence right now: Israel. Until you advocate forcibly removing their nukes, it is all just so much inconsistent right-wing rhetoric.

 

[Tani Coyote]

So God will descend from the heavens to stop a nuclear war. Uh, yeah. There's almost zero chance of that happening.

Well that was the point: they've got nothing. It was sarcastic.

Iran will unlikely hold a middle eastern country hostage because of their devotion to their religion.

If you mean because of them all being Islamic, think again: Sunnis vs. Shi'ites. The Taliban and the Islamic Republic were never on good terms. If they ever were, then Martin Luther wasn't condemned by Catholics everywhere.

If it's going to happen, then almost every Muslim in the world will hold a grudge against Iran and their population will riot against the government.

If the majority of Iranians support their government as has been said, I doubt they'd disapprove of sending a few million Sunni heretics to the creator.

This is why I hope for the young, educated youths to be the true face of Iran; they can take down the madmen in charge.

Also, if a neighbor of yours is building nuclear weapons, then why not follow the trend?

Arms races foster an atmosphere of hostility and arming up for arming up's sake. Why not... I dunno... prevent the initiator of an arms buildup from initiating it?

Arms races, by the way, were the main driver behind the oh-so-hated vast nuclear arsenals of the USA and Russia. They also were the predecessor of many conflicts such as World War I.

You mean like the US, which didn't allow women to vote until the 1933 and blacks to vote in the South without hassle up until 1965?

That past is done. We're talking the present. The past is only relevant as a point of reference in regards to the future.

Iran, therefore, should make moves to become a liberal democracy. They are one of the most educated, well-developed nations in the Middle East, from what everyone says. They are far more equipped to be a democracy than Iraq or Afghanistan.

Or like Israel who treats anybody who isn't a Jew like a second class citizen while maintaining the "charade" of a free election by ensuring they are never outnumbered by Muslims?

This requires both sides to do their part:

Israel - Needs to abolish any inherent discrimination based on religion, race, etc. Needs to embrace secularism. Once free of religious radicals, the Muslims will not be considered a threat to Israeli security.

Palestine - Needs to get rid of any religious crazies and embrace secularism. Once free of religious radicals, the Jews will not be considered evil imperialists.

Now where the debate is, is who should be first to do what?

The poor Palestinians, like many less well-off people, cling to their faith defiantly because it's all they have. Likewise, Israel will not let its guard down so long as there are radicals in Palestine.

Similarly, Israel will not let in countless materials out of fear of them being used for terrorist activities. Palestine, therefore, doesn't have the necessary goods to develop, get wealthier - and therefore ditch religious extremism - and by extension, be capable of making lasting peace with Israel.

It's a self-perpetuating cycle of distrust, enmity and misfortune, as neither side is willing to give. He(or she) who solves it will probably be one of history's greatest diplomatic minds.

You are not, but many are. Furthermore, the vast majority of the people who share these views are hardly liberals.

Tell me about it. I get lumped in with them all too often despite actually having strong principles.

Apparently not, since I have yet to see you complain about what is by far the greatest threat to world peace in existence right now: Israel. Until you advocate forcibly removing their nukes, it is all just so much inconsistent right-wing rhetoric.

How do you propose removing nukes that are already developed? We're moving the goalposts here; it's gone from preventing states from acquiring nukes to disarming those who do. The latter is much more difficult for obvious reasons.

And can only be done through either missile defense, which isn't foolproof by any means(maybe against a few, crude missiles, but no match for say, a US or Russian-sized arsenal), or closer relations, which is the only other alternative. And obviously, it's easier to cozy up with Israel than it would be Iran.

Therefore, making nuclear weapons obsolete would be the best long-term goal. It doesn't involve the near-impossible task of teaming up with your enemies, nor any interventionist wars. Humanity's darkest weapon of war could finally exist only in the history books.