Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Corporate Councils]

I'm glad someone's said it for me.

6. On the Ancient Greece scenario: Athens lost most of it's $ to fund the war, and Sparta was so broke that they gave land to PERSIA (a mutual enemy) in order to get a naval fleet. You still haven't answered any of my arguments on the other city-states. That's a critical concession.

7. Besides that, you still have provided no arguments on the Roman, German and Chinese economy scenarios, so presumption of accuracy still rests with me.

6. Yes, Athens spent a lot of money to fund the war, but as I stated it got its economy, freedom, fleet, and empire back within a decade of Aegospotoami. Sparta became quite rich as the hegemon of Greece, but it was a bad imperialist and it isolated itself from its allies. Moreover, Sparta's loss of Spartiate soldiers as a result of constant warfare and a low birthrate was what weakened her military. Though it should be noted that Sparta was never actually conquered by the Macedonians, though it did more-or-less become a client state.

7. You have presented no actual pieces of evidence other than throwing out a few civilizations while making a broad statement. Yes, economics factored in to the fall of the Republic and the Empire, but economic issues were one of many complex and interrelated factors, so many that you can put three ancient historians in a room and still get three different answers from them for the reasons for the collapse of the Roman Republic/Empire.

Then, economy collapse empirically leads to war. Not recession, like we've had, but collapse, like the Great Depression and what would happen to Russia. Also, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, and China in just about every epoch have given examples of the truth of this statement.

The economic collapse that followed the fall of the Soviet Union led to no major war, just ethnic conflicts caused by emerging nationalism as the Soviet empire broke apart.

Can you be more specific about which Chinese economic collapse and following war you're talking about? Chinese civilization has been around for a while.
Same with Germany now that you've added it to the list, care to discuss which economic collapse (as there have been quite a few) you're referencing? I'm assuming that you're referencing the Great Depression in which case, let me reference our resident German and expert on the subject who can describe the economic situation of Germany in the 20's and 30's with far greater detail that I can.

Many people credit Hitler with turning the economy around after the Great Depression. He doesn’t deserve it.

The Nazis were appointed to the government at a time marked by massive unemployment. The thing is though that unemployment dropped the year they took power, not even taking into account that the Enabling Act wasn’t passed until a few months later and any policies would have taken a year or so realistically before yielding serious results regarding the economy and yet another for that to have an effect on the job market:

(Image)

So basically, the Nazis were not responsible for causing the recovery; it was already under way and hardly unexpected given Germany’s geographical position and demographics.

This isn’t to say that the massive investment in infrastructure and armaments didn’t help or speed up recovery, but it wasn’t exactly as great as many people pretend it is. There are, again, a number of misconceptions and a good deal of cherry-picking involved.

Firstly, let’s address misconceptions about the Autobahn. The first proper Autobahn in Germany was opened by Konrad Adenauer, then Mayor of Cologne and later first Federal Chancellor of Germany, in 1932 (construction started in 1929) and connected the cities of Cologne and Bonn, ergo a year before the Nazis took power. It was the only Autobahn out of a bunch of planned by the Reichstag to reach completion, mainly because the day that the Reichstag had finally managed to agree to finance them and was going to vote on that (July 18th, 1930), the NSDAP (Nazi Party) and KPD (Communist Party) sabotaged the vote by failing to attend (Cologne-Bonn was built only because it secured municipal financing).

But then the Nazis took power and began an ambitious project to build multiple Autobahns across Germany. They were going to grow by a thousand kilometers every year and create endless amounts of jobs. The projected goals weren’t met. Apart from the first few years, the ambitious objective of an extra thousand km each year remained utopian; in total, the Autobahns reached a total length of 3 896 km before construction was finally halted in 1943. The Autobahn never employed more than 60 000 workers, plenty of which already had jobs (thus it didn’t actually create that many). Indeed, there were routine complaints by the Autobahn organizers that there were never enough workers available for the Autobahn; they already had jobs elsewhere!

So basically, if it hadn’t been for the Nazis, the Autobahn could have been built at a time when it actually would have provided much needed jobs and stimulus, rather than after the economy was already in an upswing.

The armaments industry had a bigger impact on the job market, as did the reduction of female employment (and subsequent purging of women from the unemployment statistics) and the reinstitution of the draft. Now, we can’t really credit this with aiding the German economy either, despite the noticeable effects it was having. There are a few reasons for this:

First off, the entire process was financed by a credit-swap scam. Economics minister Hjalmar Schacht created the Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft m.b.H. (MeFo for short) to circumvent limits on how much the Reichsbank could lend out to the government. Using this, the Nazis managed to run a debt of 12 billion Reichsmark. The year the first payments were to be made? 1939, the year the Nazis attacked Poland and began plundering Europe for food and finances (just consider the tax placed on the French for which they were meant to fund their own occupation). So the entire rearmament was funded by debt and the looming economic collapse was hidden by WWII.

Which brings us to the second point: WWII. Rearmament had no other purpose than to fight WWII, specifically wars with France and the Soviet Union. Hitler outlined as much in Mein Kampf (even if his hopes that the UK would join an alliance with Germany and Italy turned out to be utterly unfounded) and then to everyone’s surprise, followed through on that. When the goal of rearmament is a war of aggression, whatever job growth it creates is ethically indefensible. If you buy a gun and then shoot the owner of the gun shop that sold it to you with it, you don’t get a pat on the back for having given him a sale.

Not to mention that the end result of rearmament was the utter economic ruin of Germany, mass displacement of the population, and the irreparable sullying of the German reputation. The entire point of the lion’s share of the Nazi stimulus was preparation and waging of the Second World War, so cutting off the evaluation of what good it did for Germany before the fighting began is an intellectually dishonest assessment of Nazi economic policy.

Now, let us get back to the topic at hand.

[The-_Sicarii]

1. He is the head of the Supreme National Security Council, which controls the nuclear policy and actions of Iran.

2. refer to 1.

Fun Fact: Nothing the Supreme National Security Council says or does is binding until Khameini gives it the green light.

3. Our MILITARY SPENDING is not the same as our SCIENTIFIC ABILITY. Israel has people who are better at developing nucs than the people the US has, so the US has Israel modify the nucs.

Really? Israel won't even confirm that it has ever laid eyes on a nuclear weapon, I'm curious as to how you and only you are aware of this astonishing fact that the US depends on them to design our entire nuclear arsenal.

4. On MAD- once a nuc is launched, all bets are off. MAD is not relevant once there is already a chance of the AD part happening.

How? If Iran nukes Israel first, China and Russia will wash their hands of the Ayatollahs faster than you take a shot of vodka, they have no economic or security interests in Iran compelling enough to risk engaging in a nuclear war with the US. If Israel nukes first, the same thing applies, plus they get to go wild lambasting the United States in every forum they can find for our utter failure to maintain nuclear security and responsibility among our own allies.

5. Iran never has and never will stop THEIR OWN oil exports. You seem to have missed that I'm talking about SAUDI ARABIA's oil exports. And they're helping this "Lesser Satan" already. In addition, Iran does not trade off with Russia nearly as much as Saudi Arabia, so Russia is OK with this scenario. Russia needs high oil prices because oil is CENTRAL TO THEIR ECONOMY.

Are we going to back to "Iran suddenly full of complete idiots" and assuming that the Iranians believe that if they close the Straits nobody will bother their own oil shipping out of it? One way or another closing the Straits is an act of last resort for Iran that will devastate their economy, they're not going to do it on Russia's say so.

Fun fact: Khameinei doesn't like Israel either.

Next, if you aren't aware that 1) Israel has nucs and 2) they modify and improve US nucs, YOU LIVE UNDER A ROCK. EVERYONE knows that Israel has nucs. It has literally been referred to as the Middle East's worst kept secret.

Next, if Israel and Iran start nucing eachother, as you said, the US will look weak. You know what happens when the US, which is already hated by China due to statements by the GOP, looks weak? Nucs start flying.

And, China and Russia will not give up on Iran. Just to put things in perspective, they told NORTH KOREA to cool it when the new dictator started getting aggressive. Iran has REPEATEDLY stated that they plan to nuc Israel at the first opportunity. They have received no "cool it" statement. What does that suggest to you? It seems like Russia and China are OK with Israel getting nuked.

Finally: if you've read half of the posts on this thread, you should realize that Iran is more or less full of idiots.

Does that help you understand the situation?

[The-_Sicarii]

I'm glad someone's said it for me.

6. On the Ancient Greece scenario: Athens lost most of it's $ to fund the war, and Sparta was so broke that they gave land to PERSIA (a mutual enemy) in order to get a naval fleet. You still haven't answered any of my arguments on the other city-states. That's a critical concession.

7. Besides that, you still have provided no arguments on the Roman, German and Chinese economy scenarios, so presumption of accuracy still rests with me.

6. Yes, Athens spent a lot of money to fund the war, but as I stated it got its economy, freedom, fleet, and empire back within a decade of Aegospotoami. Sparta became quite rich as the hegemon of Greece, but it was a bad imperialist and it isolated itself from its allies. Moreover, Sparta's loss of Spartiate soldiers as a result of constant warfare and a low birthrate was what weakened her military. Though it should be noted that Sparta was never actually conquered by the Macedonians, though it did more-or-less become a client state.

7. You have presented no actual pieces of evidence other than throwing out a few civilizations while making a broad statement. Yes, economics factored in to the fall of the Republic and the Empire, but economic issues were one of many complex and interrelated factors, so many that you can put three ancient historians in a room and still get three different answers from them for the reasons for the collapse of the Roman Republic/Empire.

Then, economy collapse empirically leads to war. Not recession, like we've had, but collapse, like the Great Depression and what would happen to Russia. Also, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, and China in just about every epoch have given examples of the truth of this statement.

The economic collapse that followed the fall of the Soviet Union led to no major war, just ethnic conflicts caused by emerging nationalism as the Soviet empire broke apart.

Can you be more specific about which Chinese economic collapse and following war you're talking about? Chinese civilization has been around for a while.
Same with Germany now that you've added it to the list, care to discuss which economic collapse (as there have been quite a few) you're referencing? I'm assuming that you're referencing the Great Depression in which case, let me reference our resident German and expert on the subject who can describe the economic situation of Germany in the 20's and 30's with far greater detail that I can.

Many people credit Hitler with turning the economy around after the Great Depression. He doesn’t deserve it.

The Nazis were appointed to the government at a time marked by massive unemployment. The thing is though that unemployment dropped the year they took power, not even taking into account that the Enabling Act wasn’t passed until a few months later and any policies would have taken a year or so realistically before yielding serious results regarding the economy and yet another for that to have an effect on the job market:

(Image)

So basically, the Nazis were not responsible for causing the recovery; it was already under way and hardly unexpected given Germany’s geographical position and demographics.

This isn’t to say that the massive investment in infrastructure and armaments didn’t help or speed up recovery, but it wasn’t exactly as great as many people pretend it is. There are, again, a number of misconceptions and a good deal of cherry-picking involved.

Firstly, let’s address misconceptions about the Autobahn. The first proper Autobahn in Germany was opened by Konrad Adenauer, then Mayor of Cologne and later first Federal Chancellor of Germany, in 1932 (construction started in 1929) and connected the cities of Cologne and Bonn, ergo a year before the Nazis took power. It was the only Autobahn out of a bunch of planned by the Reichstag to reach completion, mainly because the day that the Reichstag had finally managed to agree to finance them and was going to vote on that (July 18th, 1930), the NSDAP (Nazi Party) and KPD (Communist Party) sabotaged the vote by failing to attend (Cologne-Bonn was built only because it secured municipal financing).

But then the Nazis took power and began an ambitious project to build multiple Autobahns across Germany. They were going to grow by a thousand kilometers every year and create endless amounts of jobs. The projected goals weren’t met. Apart from the first few years, the ambitious objective of an extra thousand km each year remained utopian; in total, the Autobahns reached a total length of 3 896 km before construction was finally halted in 1943. The Autobahn never employed more than 60 000 workers, plenty of which already had jobs (thus it didn’t actually create that many). Indeed, there were routine complaints by the Autobahn organizers that there were never enough workers available for the Autobahn; they already had jobs elsewhere!

So basically, if it hadn’t been for the Nazis, the Autobahn could have been built at a time when it actually would have provided much needed jobs and stimulus, rather than after the economy was already in an upswing.

The armaments industry had a bigger impact on the job market, as did the reduction of female employment (and subsequent purging of women from the unemployment statistics) and the reinstitution of the draft. Now, we can’t really credit this with aiding the German economy either, despite the noticeable effects it was having. There are a few reasons for this:

First off, the entire process was financed by a credit-swap scam. Economics minister Hjalmar Schacht created the Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft m.b.H. (MeFo for short) to circumvent limits on how much the Reichsbank could lend out to the government. Using this, the Nazis managed to run a debt of 12 billion Reichsmark. The year the first payments were to be made? 1939, the year the Nazis attacked Poland and began plundering Europe for food and finances (just consider the tax placed on the French for which they were meant to fund their own occupation). So the entire rearmament was funded by debt and the looming economic collapse was hidden by WWII.

Which brings us to the second point: WWII. Rearmament had no other purpose than to fight WWII, specifically wars with France and the Soviet Union. Hitler outlined as much in Mein Kampf (even if his hopes that the UK would join an alliance with Germany and Italy turned out to be utterly unfounded) and then to everyone’s surprise, followed through on that. When the goal of rearmament is a war of aggression, whatever job growth it creates is ethically indefensible. If you buy a gun and then shoot the owner of the gun shop that sold it to you with it, you don’t get a pat on the back for having given him a sale.

Not to mention that the end result of rearmament was the utter economic ruin of Germany, mass displacement of the population, and the irreparable sullying of the German reputation. The entire point of the lion’s share of the Nazi stimulus was preparation and waging of the Second World War, so cutting off the evaluation of what good it did for Germany before the fighting began is an intellectually dishonest assessment of Nazi economic policy.

Now, let us get back to the topic at hand.

Okay, I'll concede the Ancient Greece scenario because that isn't even central to my point and does not disprove it even if you are right.

Other scenarios that are somewhat more accurate:

Ancient Rome: economic collapse caused extreme weakness, allowing outsiders to invade. Rome's economic inability to sustain it's empire caused Constantine to split it into the East and the West, with bad results: both empires were attacked repeatedly, causing the eventual collapse of both.

The Crusades: multiple countries suffered from internal fighting over resources do to (ahem) economic collapse. In order to divert the fighting, the Pope directed everyone toward the middle east starting something like eight or nine wars.

Ancient China: happened rather often as a way of transition between dynasties- life was good, then some type of problem (usually some form of ECONOMIC COLLAPSE) caused people to get mad and overthrow the current emperor in a civil war.

Modern China: bad economy leading up to and after WWII caused people to get mad because they were dying of hunger and overthrow the GMD in a civil war. This caused the rise of communism in China, with disastrous results involving the deaths of millions and the invasions of Tibet and Taiwan.

Germany: economic collapse (caused by the Treaty of Versailles) was the reason the Germans wanted war. Yes, the economy had technically recovered by the time they started attacking, but war had already been inevitable since the Great Depression because the were pretty ticked off about not being able to eat.

Anything else?

[Socialist EU]

Finally: if you've read half of the posts on this thread, you should realize that Iran is more or less full of idiots.

Rolling out the racism I see, you really need to take a rest from listening to Glen Beck!

[The-_Sicarii]

Finally: if you've read half of the posts on this thread, you should realize that Iran is more or less full of idiots.

Rolling out the racism I see, you really need to take a rest from listening to Glen Beck!

I mean the guys in charge of nuclear policy and such. Not everyone. The reference on this thread, in general, is to those who have a direct effect on international policy.

I'm sorry if you feel that way overall; that is not my political position at all.

And I probably hate Glen Beck just as much as you do, for the record.

[Ralkovia]

It's not really about whether Iran would use a nuke or not. It shouldn't scare anyone in the United States. We were prepared to shoot down Russian nuclear missiles in half the time. Even Israel probably doesn't have anything to fear, Iran wouldn't be able to outproduce an Israeli stockpile for a large number of years. In fact, I'd say the people most at risk would be central Europeans and other Middle East nations.

However, there are implications when dealing with a nuclear power. Understand why the US and Russia never fought against each other. Understand why the cold war was fought by proxy. You walk on eggshells when nukes are involved. You don't dare confront the enemy in an actual battle. Hence, why we would never send actual troops into Pakistan. A nuclear Iran, raises its diplomatic and political power tremendously. A nation that is hostile to most European nations as well as the US. If you honestly believe a nuclear Iran would do anything but cause tremendous trouble in the World, you're living in a fantasy land.

The US is the World's policeman for a reason. We protect the status quo. Something the Europeans don't seem very apt to do, having thrown their 'imperialistic' ambitions after they were taken over by Germany. Today, power is shifting over to the East. It's not just American power, its European power as well. If you look at the economic charts, European nations are disappearing and Asian nations and South American nations replacing them. Now, that's shouldn't mean anything to the 'sharing is caring' liberal, however it will when you find that your standard of living begins to drop, your politics change as you become outnumbered in your host nations, and your own resources are being exploited by Asian companies.

Blame us for going to war over oil or resources. Call us aggressive Imperialists and what have you. To be honest, it's going to affect you a whole lot more than us.

So what does this have to do with Iran?

Simple. Whatever makes my enemy stronger, makes me weaker.

[Lessnt]

It's not really about whether Iran would use a nuke or not. It shouldn't scare anyone in the United States. We were prepared to shoot down Russian nuclear missiles in half the time. Even Israel probably doesn't have anything to fear, Iran wouldn't be able to outproduce an Israeli stockpile for a large number of years. In fact, I'd say the people most at risk would be central Europeans and other Middle East nations.

However, there are implications when dealing with a nuclear power. Understand why the US and Russia never fought against each other. Understand why the cold war was fought by proxy. You walk on eggshells when nukes are involved. You don't dare confront the enemy in an actual battle. Hence, why we would never send actual troops into Pakistan. A nuclear Iran, raises its diplomatic and political power tremendously. A nation that is hostile to most European nations as well as the US. If you honestly believe a nuclear Iran would do anything but cause tremendous trouble in the World, you're living in a fantasy land.

The US is the World's policeman for a reason. We protect the status quo. Something the Europeans don't seem very apt to do, having thrown their 'imperialistic' ambitions after they were taken over by Germany. Today, power is shifting over to the East. It's not just American power, its European power as well. If you look at the economic charts, European nations are disappearing and Asian nations and South American nations replacing them. Now, that's shouldn't mean anything to the 'sharing is caring' liberal, however it will when you find that your standard of living begins to drop, your politics change as you become outnumbered in your host nations, and your own resources are being exploited by Asian companies.

Blame us for going to war over oil or resources. Call us aggressive Imperialists and what have you. To be honest, it's going to affect you a whole lot more than us.

So what does this have to do with Iran?

Simple. Whatever makes my enemy stronger, makes me weaker.

Europe needs to feel contempt for everyone else they feel unimportant.

[Myrensis]

Fun fact: Khameinei doesn't like Israel either.

Ah, so now we've gone from "Ahmadinejad runs the show!" to "Well, Khameini would probably do it anyway!"

Next, if you aren't aware that 1) Israel has nucs and 2) they modify and improve US nucs, YOU LIVE UNDER A ROCK. EVERYONE knows that Israel has nucs. It has literally been referred to as the Middle East's worst kept secret.

Yes, I'm aware of Israel having nukes, what'd I'd like is a source for the idea that the US is dependent on them for keeping our nuclear arsenal up to date.

Next, if Israel and Iran start nucing eachother, as you said, the US will look weak. You know what happens when the US, which is already hated by China due to statements by the GOP, looks weak? Nucs start flying.

So now we've moved on to China and Russia being full of idiots too, who assume that if the US doesn't start glassing everything in response to a conflict between Israel and Iran, they have a free pass to start nuking things willy nilly?

And, China and Russia will not give up on Iran. Just to put things in perspective, they told NORTH KOREA to cool it when the new dictator started getting aggressive. Iran has REPEATEDLY stated that they plan to nuc Israel at the first opportunity. They have received no "cool it" statement. What does that suggest to you? It seems like Russia and China are OK with Israel getting nuked.

North Korea represents an immediate security concern, since it would mean nukes flying on China's border, and the possibility of a unified pro-US Korean peninsula right on their doorstep. The lack of a 'cool it' statement is the result of 1. The fact that Iran is not almost completely dependent on China the way North Korea is, and 2. Does not represent an immediate strategic threat to them. It does not mean Russia and China are overjoyed at the prospect of playing Nuclear tag with the United States.

Finally: if you've read half of the posts on this thread, you should realize that Iran is more or less full of idiots.

1. A bunch of people who don't like Iran calling them idiots does not a convincing argument make. 2. Still amused at those same people not finding any contradiction in declaring that Iran is simultaneously the gravest threat to face the world in generations and so staggeringly incompetent that they couldn't tie their shoes without strangling themselves.

[SD_Film Artists]

What would be a better solution other than an ineffective "working class revolution"? Iran can't continue in how it's behaving, but a military intervention is disproportional and will likely only make things worse. Sanctions punish the nation without creating more war. Iran can lift the sanctions anytime it wants to by complying with the international community.

A revolution is hardly on the minds of the Iranian working class right now. Why? The sanctions are causing ordinary Iranians to fight for survival, because the selfish tops of Washington want to maintain the US as a hegemonic power, its a rational response from their point of view, but not from ours. You are quite happy with punishing the nation, even thou it punishes Iranians too! That is extremely callous of you to declare your support for a collective punishment on ordinary Iranians because of a corrupt elite. I'm sure ordinary Iranians appreciate your concern for their welfare. I'm sure ordinary Iranians appreciate your support in helping make it easier for the Iranian theocracy to come down even harder on them.

Meanwhile, if you're really concerned about peace in the middle east, why will you not advocate a nuclear-weapons free middle east, as Labour MPs Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have? As far as I know, you're not one of the tops in Washington and have no vested interest in maintaining this theatre, so why do you naively go along with it?

I assume you wanted somesort of democratic or military coup by the working class as earlier you seemed to think that they're best placed to solve this, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Of course it will be better if the sanctions effect the Iranian government more than the ordinary Iranins. I think that you're avoiding the fact that it's the Iranian government who is pushing forward the nuclear program and similar actions, so it's only natural that the UN puts sanctions on what the Iranian government is doing. You've yet to give a better solution.

As for nuclear weapons, I think that the world should have a controlled, equal removal of nuclear weapons, as they can only be a bad thing.

You could say that's a rather vague answer, but you gave me a rather vague question with "you're not one of the tops in Washington and have no vested interest in maintaining this theatre, so why do you naively go along with it?"

[Socialist EU]

It's not really about whether Iran would use a nuke or not. It shouldn't scare anyone in the United States. We were prepared to shoot down Russian nuclear missiles in half the time. Even Israel probably doesn't have anything to fear, Iran wouldn't be able to outproduce an Israeli stockpile for a large number of years. In fact, I'd say the people most at risk would be central Europeans and other Middle East nations.

However, there are implications when dealing with a nuclear power. Understand why the US and Russia never fought against each other. Understand why the cold war was fought by proxy. You walk on eggshells when nukes are involved. You don't dare confront the enemy in an actual battle. Hence, why we would never send actual troops into Pakistan. A nuclear Iran, raises its diplomatic and political power tremendously. A nation that is hostile to most European nations as well as the US. If you honestly believe a nuclear Iran would do anything but cause tremendous trouble in the World, you're living in a fantasy land.

The US is the World's policeman for a reason. We protect the status quo. Something the Europeans don't seem very apt to do, having thrown their 'imperialistic' ambitions after they were taken over by Germany. Today, power is shifting over to the East. It's not just American power, its European power as well. If you look at the economic charts, European nations are disappearing and Asian nations and South American nations replacing them. Now, that's shouldn't mean anything to the 'sharing is caring' liberal, however it will when you find that your standard of living begins to drop, your politics change as you become outnumbered in your host nations, and your own resources are being exploited by Asian companies.

Blame us for going to war over oil or resources. Call us aggressive Imperialists and what have you. To be honest, it's going to affect you a whole lot more than us.

So what does this have to do with Iran?

Simple. Whatever makes my enemy stronger, makes me weaker.

This message was brought to you/approved by the US State department.

[Socialist EU]

A revolution is hardly on the minds of the Iranian working class right now. Why? The sanctions are causing ordinary Iranians to fight for survival, because the selfish tops of Washington want to maintain the US as a hegemonic power, its a rational response from their point of view, but not from ours. You are quite happy with punishing the nation, even thou it punishes Iranians too! That is extremely callous of you to declare your support for a collective punishment on ordinary Iranians because of a corrupt elite. I'm sure ordinary Iranians appreciate your concern for their welfare. I'm sure ordinary Iranians appreciate your support in helping make it easier for the Iranian theocracy to come down even harder on them.

Meanwhile, if you're really concerned about peace in the middle east, why will you not advocate a nuclear-weapons free middle east, as Labour MPs Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have? As far as I know, you're not one of the tops in Washington and have no vested interest in maintaining this theatre, so why do you naively go along with it?

I assume you wanted somesort of democratic or military coup by the working class as earlier you seemed to think that they're best placed to solve this, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Of course it will be better if the sanctions effect the Iranian government more than the ordinary Iranins. I think that you're avoiding the fact that it's the Iranian government who is pushing forward the nuclear program and similar actions, so it's only natural that the UN puts sanctions on what the Iranian government is doing. You've yet to give a better solution.

As for nuclear weapons, I think that the world should have a controlled, equal removal of nuclear weapons, as they can only be a bad thing.

You could say that's a rather vague answer, but you gave me a rather vague question with "you're not one of the tops in Washington and have no vested interest in maintaining this theatre, so why do you naively go along with it?"

All you've demonstrated here is that you're typically a social democrat nationalist. You have concern for the British working class, but couldn't care a toss about the working class outside our national state. Showing international working class solidarity is of no concern to you. I get it now.

[Kalalification]

Oh boy, things have devolved into a red-on-red catfight.

Incidentally, sanctions, "smart" or otherwise, have proven effective in the past. You see, they actually have a material effect on a nation, unlike holier-than-thou condemnations or the tacit approval that some of you lot seem to support. In any case, Marxist bullshit really isn't relevant to this topic at all. I mean, sure, reds like to make it out like everything is, but on both the prima facie and core levels of this issue, we're dealing with nuclear politics.

[Socialist EU]

Oh boy, things have devolved into a red-on-red catfight.

Incidentally, sanctions, "smart" or otherwise, have proven effective in the past. You see, they actually have a material effect on a nation, unlike holier-than-thou condemnations or the tacit approval that some of you lot seem to support. In any case, Marxist bullshit really isn't relevant to this topic at all. I mean, sure, reds like to make it out like everything is, but on both the prima facie and core levels of this issue, we're dealing with nuclear politics.

When you say nuclear politics, do you mean the red-on-red open democratic debate or the nuclear-politics that began 67 years ago to this day,(9th Aug, nuclear attack on Japan)?

And when you say Marxist nonsense I assume these are just scare words to discredit arguments for openess,democracy and adherence to the working class principle.

[The Imperial Alliance of Free States]

Oh boy, things have devolved into a red-on-red catfight.

Incidentally, sanctions, "smart" or otherwise, have proven effective in the past. You see, they actually have a material effect on a nation, unlike holier-than-thou condemnations or the tacit approval that some of you lot seem to support. In any case, Marxist bullshit really isn't relevant to this topic at all. I mean, sure, reds like to make it out like everything is, but on both the prima facie and core levels of this issue, we're dealing with nuclear politics.

When you say nuclear politics, do you mean the red-on-red open democratic debate or the nuclear-politics that began 67 years ago to this day,(9th Aug, nuclear attack on Japan)?

And when you say Marxist nonsense I assume these are just scare words to discredit arguments for openess,democracy and adherence to the working class principle.

Just because I'm a picky SOB, I'm going to point out that the beginning of nuclear politics is debatable. The first atomic test was July 16, the first attack was NOT today the 9th but rather Monday the 6th, and there was an unofficial intelligence war between the US and the USSR over the Manhattan Project more or less from its inception. Stalin learned of the existence of the weapons before Truman did. Just saying.

[Ralkovia]

It's not really about whether Iran would use a nuke or not. It shouldn't scare anyone in the United States. We were prepared to shoot down Russian nuclear missiles in half the time. Even Israel probably doesn't have anything to fear, Iran wouldn't be able to outproduce an Israeli stockpile for a large number of years. In fact, I'd say the people most at risk would be central Europeans and other Middle East nations.

However, there are implications when dealing with a nuclear power. Understand why the US and Russia never fought against each other. Understand why the cold war was fought by proxy. You walk on eggshells when nukes are involved. You don't dare confront the enemy in an actual battle. Hence, why we would never send actual troops into Pakistan. A nuclear Iran, raises its diplomatic and political power tremendously. A nation that is hostile to most European nations as well as the US. If you honestly believe a nuclear Iran would do anything but cause tremendous trouble in the World, you're living in a fantasy land.

The US is the World's policeman for a reason. We protect the status quo. Something the Europeans don't seem very apt to do, having thrown their 'imperialistic' ambitions after they were taken over by Germany. Today, power is shifting over to the East. It's not just American power, its European power as well. If you look at the economic charts, European nations are disappearing and Asian nations and South American nations replacing them. Now, that's shouldn't mean anything to the 'sharing is caring' liberal, however it will when you find that your standard of living begins to drop, your politics change as you become outnumbered in your host nations, and your own resources are being exploited by Asian companies.

Blame us for going to war over oil or resources. Call us aggressive Imperialists and what have you. To be honest, it's going to affect you a whole lot more than us.

So what does this have to do with Iran?

Simple. Whatever makes my enemy stronger, makes me weaker.

This message was brought to you/approved by the US State department.

And?

[Famagusto]

I think no country should be allowed to have nukes, but I don't think America can barge in and decide who gets to have them either, especially not when they have so many themselves. I don't like the USA any more than Iran, so the former should shut up about it.

[Ecans]

Forget the arguments about Israel’s' bomb etc. It has nothing to do with the discussion.

Iran MUST NOT have "the bomb" They seek regional domination and the destruction of another nation. Unstable religious fascists who cannot be trusted rule the downtrodden masses. Screw their rights. They are a threat to any and all people who do not hew to their warped view of the world and how it should be run.

Iran couldn't destroy Israel if they tried their hardest.
And it was reported in the news recently about US having 13.6 tonne bunker busters.

The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/adds ... story.html

I did not say that they had the present capability, just that they have advocated Israel's destruction time and again and would love to have the means. The mad mullahs are capable of anything. Reason has little to do with their way of thinking...aside from clinging to power. And what the hell does American bombs have to do with anything? WMD production is often widely spread out, if that was your point.

[Ecans]

I think no country should be allowed to have nukes, but I don't think America can barge in and decide who gets to have them either, especially not when they have so many themselves. I don't like the USA any more than Iran, so the former should shut up about it.

Give your head a shake. It's not just the US who is concerned about Iran, it's most of the world...including their Muslim neighbours. And while I agree that no one should have nukes, well, that ship has sailed. Please try not to let your dislike of Americans cloud your judgement.

[Allbeama]

There is no good reason for any nation to have nuclear weapons. Universal disarmament of nuclear weapons must be the priority of world gov'ts if we are to have any kind of future that isn't Cold War politics again. That being said, this whole song and dance with Iran is just the prelude to another pointless war in the Middle East that happens to have the added benefit of motivating the Zionist lobby to throw money into Romney and Obama's campaigns (mostly Romney's), in order to buy a president that is pro-Israel, and this has the net effect of setting back the Palestinian cause by a mile or two. Not that the GOP is likely to admit the Palestinians have legitimacy.

[Costa Fiero]

Oh boy, things have devolved into a red-on-red catfight.

Incidentally, sanctions, "smart" or otherwise, have proven effective in the past. You see, they actually have a material effect on a nation, unlike holier-than-thou condemnations or the tacit approval that some of you lot seem to support. In any case, Marxist bullshit really isn't relevant to this topic at all. I mean, sure, reds like to make it out like everything is, but on both the prima facie and core levels of this issue, we're dealing with nuclear politics.

Depends on the situation. An arms embargo was placed on aparthied era South Africa and if anything, it gave their arms industry a massive boost.

[Caninope]

There is no good reason for any nation to have nuclear weapons. Universal disarmament of nuclear weapons must be the priority of world gov'ts if we are to have any kind of future that isn't Cold War politics again. That being said, this whole song and dance with Iran is just the prelude to another pointless war in the Middle East that happens to have the added benefit of motivating the Zionist lobby to throw money into Romney and Obama's campaigns (mostly Romney's), in order to buy a president that is pro-Israel, and this has the net effect of setting back the Palestinian cause by a mile or two. Not that the GOP is likely to admit the Palestinians have legitimacy.

Having a limited number of nuclear states is actually incredibly stable, and a boon to peace.

Notice the word "limited" though.

[The-_Sicarii]

It's not really about whether Iran would use a nuke or not. It shouldn't scare anyone in the United States. We were prepared to shoot down Russian nuclear missiles in half the time. Even Israel probably doesn't have anything to fear, Iran wouldn't be able to outproduce an Israeli stockpile for a large number of years. In fact, I'd say the people most at risk would be central Europeans and other Middle East nations.

However, there are implications when dealing with a nuclear power. Understand why the US and Russia never fought against each other. Understand why the cold war was fought by proxy. You walk on eggshells when nukes are involved. You don't dare confront the enemy in an actual battle. Hence, why we would never send actual troops into Pakistan. A nuclear Iran, raises its diplomatic and political power tremendously. A nation that is hostile to most European nations as well as the US. If you honestly believe a nuclear Iran would do anything but cause tremendous trouble in the World, you're living in a fantasy land.

The US is the World's policeman for a reason. We protect the status quo. Something the Europeans don't seem very apt to do, having thrown their 'imperialistic' ambitions after they were taken over by Germany. Today, power is shifting over to the East. It's not just American power, its European power as well. If you look at the economic charts, European nations are disappearing and Asian nations and South American nations replacing them. Now, that's shouldn't mean anything to the 'sharing is caring' liberal, however it will when you find that your standard of living begins to drop, your politics change as you become outnumbered in your host nations, and your own resources are being exploited by Asian companies.

Blame us for going to war over oil or resources. Call us aggressive Imperialists and what have you. To be honest, it's going to affect you a whole lot more than us.

So what does this have to do with Iran?

Simple. Whatever makes my enemy stronger, makes me weaker.

I wish I had though of that first.

I think no country should be allowed to have nukes, but I don't think America can barge in and decide who gets to have them either, especially not when they have so many themselves. I don't like the USA any more than Iran, so the former should shut up about it.

Give your head a shake. It's not just the US who is concerned about Iran, it's most of the world...including their Muslim neighbours. And while I agree that no one should have nukes, well, that ship has sailed. Please try not to let your dislike of Americans cloud your judgement.

This, too.

Sorry I didn't get to the other arguments, I'll cover them soon.

[Vyvansia]

Iran is an enemy of the United States in an extremely vital position; the more we can do to weaken them and contain their influence, the better. Allowing them to get a nuclear weapon would be detrimental to that goal.

That's the same reason why Israel took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction; I can only imagine what would've happened if Iraq had nuclear weapons during the Gulf War, let alone the Iran-Iraq War...

Yes. Iran getting a nuke would make the whole "suppress Iran for our own interests" thing a tad harder. I wonder why they want one?

The first sentence of your signature is a run-on sentence.

[Arkinesia]

It's not really about whether Iran would use a nuke or not. It shouldn't scare anyone in the United States. We were prepared to shoot down Russian nuclear missiles in half the time. Even Israel probably doesn't have anything to fear, Iran wouldn't be able to outproduce an Israeli stockpile for a large number of years. In fact, I'd say the people most at risk would be central Europeans and other Middle East nations.

However, there are implications when dealing with a nuclear power. Understand why the US and Russia never fought against each other. Understand why the cold war was fought by proxy. You walk on eggshells when nukes are involved. You don't dare confront the enemy in an actual battle. Hence, why we would never send actual troops into Pakistan. A nuclear Iran, raises its diplomatic and political power tremendously. A nation that is hostile to most European nations as well as the US. If you honestly believe a nuclear Iran would do anything but cause tremendous trouble in the World, you're living in a fantasy land.

The US is the World's policeman for a reason. We protect the status quo. Something the Europeans don't seem very apt to do, having thrown their 'imperialistic' ambitions after they were taken over by Germany. Today, power is shifting over to the East. It's not just American power, its European power as well. If you look at the economic charts, European nations are disappearing and Asian nations and South American nations replacing them. Now, that's shouldn't mean anything to the 'sharing is caring' liberal, however it will when you find that your standard of living begins to drop, your politics change as you become outnumbered in your host nations, and your own resources are being exploited by Asian companies.

Blame us for going to war over oil or resources. Call us aggressive Imperialists and what have you. To be honest, it's going to affect you a whole lot more than us.

So what does this have to do with Iran?

Simple. Whatever makes my enemy stronger, makes me weaker.

This message was brought to you/approved by the US State department.

Last I checked, “brainless Congressmen” was not spelled “State Department.”

The State Department and CIA are quite frankly not a flurry of activity over Iran's pathetic attempts at posturing. That's because foreign policy people worth their salt simply can't be assed to care.

[Lessnt]

When Iran has a successful nuclear bomb test.
Then things change.