Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

Setanta wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Regarding Israel, if the world fails to prevent Iran from gaining nukes, we should ditch the NPT and give direct aid to Israel's nuclear program, to make sure Iran has a strong deterrent against attacking Israel.

Why? Isreal has no special claim on our protection and aid. Do you assert that we should give such aid to any state which can make a claim upon our beneficence?

Israel is our friend and ally. We should always aid our friends and allies when they are threatened.

Afghanistan is also our friend and ally. The United Arab Emirates are also our friends and allies. Kuwait is our friend and ally. One assumes that at least by policy, Iraq is our friend and ally. Saudia Arabia is also our friend and ally. Jordan is at least theoretically our friend, if not actually our ally. Turkey is our friend and is our ally by treaty, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. All of those nations could be seriously harmed by unilateral American action on behalf of Israel which were based upon a putative and undemostrated threat from the Persians.

Would they be harmed if we ditched the NPT and gave massive aid to Israel's nuclear arsenal?

Would they be harmed if we ditched the NPT and gave massive aid to Israel's nuclear arsenal?

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Setanta wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Regarding Israel, if the world fails to prevent Iran from gaining nukes, we should ditch the NPT and give direct aid to Israel's nuclear program, to make sure Iran has a strong deterrent against attacking Israel.

Why? Isreal has no special claim on our protection and aid. Do you assert that we should give such aid to any state which can make a claim upon our beneficence?

Israel is our friend and ally. We should always aid our friends and allies when they are threatened.

Afghanistan is also our friend and ally. The United Arab Emirates are also our friends and allies. Kuwait is our friend and ally. One assumes that at least by policy, Iraq is our friend and ally. Saudia Arabia is also our friend and ally. Jordan is at least theoretically our friend, if not actually our ally. Turkey is our friend and is our ally by treaty, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. All of those nations could be seriously harmed by unilateral American action on behalf of Israel which were based upon a putative and undemostrated threat from the Persians.

Would they be harmed if we ditched the NPT and gave massive aid to Israel's nuclear arsenal?

I couldn't say that they would, although it is likely that they might consider that it entailed an unacceptable threat. I don't consider that you've offered good reason for that course of action.

oralloy wrote:

Would they be harmed if we ditched the NPT and gave massive aid to Israel's nuclear arsenal?

Now ain't that funny!

"Look those Iranians! They have a nuclear program! It's still in accordance with the NPT, but it might not be in the future! We have to prevent that! If we don't, what would the NPT be worth! Nothing! Everybody would try to get nukes! There are rules after all!

....

So, let's ditch the NPT and stock up Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal. That will tech those Persians what it means to go by a contract you have signed!"

Iran's nuclear weapons program is not in accordance with the NPT.

I was thinking of a much larger invasion -- enough to take over the country.

"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.[/i] (USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy)

oralloy wrote:

Iran's nuclear weapons program is not in accordance with the NPT.

"Iran's nuclear weapons program"? What nuclear weapons program?

So far all they have is a nuclear program. A nuclear program is well in accordance with the NPT.

You know, just because you're saying "Look, they have a nuclear weapons program" doesn't make it so.

It would be nice if Iran would agree to stop its program, or at least to stop the enrichment program, but right now they are not doing anything illegal.

What you are saying is meaningless.

oralloy wrote:

>>I was thinking of a much larger invasion -- enough to take over the country.

>Invade then leave? seems like an awful lot of wasted effort if you ask me

If one side in a conflict goes nuclear, the other is bound to follow suit

The Iranian crisis can only be understood as the inevitable result of Israel's US-backed WMD monopoly in the region

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1746244,00.html

The reason is so that Israel will have a sound nuclear deterrent against Iran.

oralloy wrote:

The reason is so that Israel will have a sound nuclear deterrent against Iran.

I am possibly wrong, but don't Israel already have nukes?

Israel is not lilly white in regards to some past actions

and I personally don't want to arm them even more than they are already for a threat that is not even real yet or may never be.

Quote:

If one side in a conflict goes nuclear, the other is bound to follow suit

The Iranian crisis can only be understood as the inevitable result of Israel's US-backed WMD monopoly in the region

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1746244,00.html

old europe wrote:

So far all they have is a nuclear program. A nuclear program is well in accordance with the NPT.

That is incorrect. Their nuclear weapons program is not in accordance with the NPT.

Now look at that:

oralloy wrote:

old europe wrote:

So far all they have is a nuclear program. A nuclear program is well in accordance with the NPT.

That is incorrect. Their nuclear weapons program is not in accordance with the NPT.

Did anybody miss that? Here we go again: I said "A nuclear program is well in accordance with the NPT."

oralloy's answer:

"That is incorrect. Their nuclear weapons program is not in accordance with the NPT."


...

Funny. Do you work for the Bush administration, by chance? Hehehe. Now, let's try again. Here is what I am saying:

A nuclear program is well in accordance with the NPT.

Your turn now. Is that right or wrong?

A nuclear program may or may not be in accordance with the NPT, depending on the details.

A nuclear program is not in accordance with the NPT if it is a nuclear weapons program (unless it is run by one of the five accepted nuclear powers).

oralloy wrote:

A nuclear program may or may not be in accordance with the NPT, depending on the details.

A nuclear program is not in accordance with the NPT if it is a nuclear weapons program (unless it is run by one of the five accepted nuclear powers).

Aaaaaah. We're getting somewhere, finally. So you would have to prove (and I mean prove, not make a guess - you're talking about killing 1,000,000 people), you would have to prove that the Iranian program is indeed a nuclear weapons program.

Saying "Well, they're keeping it secret" just doesn't cut it. That's a hint. You can draw your conclusion from that. But you're still guessing. No proof. Nothing. And certainly not illegal.

Quote:

The reason is so that Israel will have a sound nuclear deterrent against Iran.

I am possibly wrong, but don't Israel already have nukes? Iran knows that the US is always going to back Israel no matter what, and we sure have nukes, it seems to me they already have a "sound nuclear deterrent against Iran."

Israel is not lilly white in regards to some past actions and I personally don't want to arm them even more than they are already for a threat that is not even real yet or may never be.

Such as?

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran would count as a real threat.

Given the opportunity and if allowed to proceed, Iran will nuke Israel. That's a fact.