Iran

[__earth]

Deja vu?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20040916/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_dc

VIENNA (Reuters) - A senior U.S. official said on Thursday that satellite photographs of a suspected nuclear industrial site in Iran demonstrated its intention to develop atomic weapons, an allegation Tehran dismissed as "a new lie."

[digimushu]

hrm....must be a last ditched hope for the elections...

[Thirdshifter]

I hope Iran are not developing any atomic weapons. If they are and US and the world have enough reasons to believe so, I would have no objections of a military campaign to disarm them. Even though i disagree to a certain extend of the War in Iraq, for the most part it is beneficial. Economically and politically for the region.

[el_empty]

trivia: did you know malaysia has a nuclear power plant too?

[__earth]

malaysia has a research nuclear power plant. Iran is suspected of developing nuclear weapon.

But if Iran is developing such capability, it is comprehensible. Iran is being sandwiched by the US as both Iraq and Afghanistan are pro-US from a certain POV. Nuclear capability is probably the stronger deterrant to American military influence compared to any other method, if the US is ever to invade Iran.

[el_empty]

my point is that we will never know.

the people who are accusing iran of developing nuclear weapons are the same ones who misled the world into believing that iraq has the WMD, which were never found.

what do we know about what's going on within the iranian border? what do we know about what's going on inside PUSPATI?

likewise, why is the "senior US official" asking about iran? why aren't there any more serious reactions to korea's mushroom cloud? israel's nuclear project in dimona was an open secret but little was done about it. what about that?

i hope everyone pauses to think about these issues when commenting about iran. then again, they may be developing bombs for malicious use. then again, maybe malaysia is too....

The ayatollahs definitely has intentions of getting a nuclear weapon, at the very least for defensive reasons. It has a big enemy (the US) next door in Iraq. Nukes are huge deterrent for invading powers -- ever wonder why there was no talk to invade Pakistan after 9/11, even though Pakistan has and continues to be a haven for al Qaeda? Answer: It has nukes.

To counter this urge, the US has to impose a huge stick in that it must publicly announce that any move by the Iran government to obtain nuclear weapons (and that includes expelling the UN inspectors) will be treated as an act of war.

[digimushu]

This is annoying. IMHO, no country has the right to stop another country from advancing in technologies. Yes, if the nukes fall into the wrong hands, it could be bad(look at where Russia's stockpile is going to now). Countries like the US should offer help to make the security better at nuclear facilities in other countries without intervening in the process of R&D.

I bet if M'sia was to develop its own version of the stealth fighter, the US would come a-sniffing as well.

[sanghanuman]

the people who are accusing iran of developing nuclear weapons are the same ones who misled the world into believing that iraq has the WMD, which were never found.

likewise, why is the "senior US official" asking about iran? why aren't there any more serious reactions to korea's mushroom cloud? israel's nuclear project in dimona was an open secret but little was done about it. what about that?

i hope everyone pauses to think about these issues when commenting about iran. then again, they may be developing bombs for malicious use. then again, maybe malaysia is too....

Yup. I wonder why the US threw a blind eye (or it seems to be the case) at the "mushroom cloud" in Korea. Maybe it is a political strategy but if it's not,....

Maybe their issue is not WMD, but something else.

It is important to acknowledge the fact that not all world leaders are acting in the interest of the common good (of their citizens). There are some evil leaders like the many dictators in the Middle East, Pres. Kim in North Korea who must be controlled and monitored, and if possible eliminated.

Saying that we should allow evil people to develop nukes and sit around and do nothing until they launch an offensive with nukes is extremely irresponsible. How would you explain to the millions of people who will be killed if Iran developed nukes and smuggled it into New York City? Oops, they didn't attack us before, and we need to wait till they attack?

[sanghanuman]

I still dont think that "perceived", "imagined" fear should be the base of war.

[el_empty]

ever wonder why there was no talk to invade Pakistan after 9/11, even though Pakistan has and continues to be a haven for al Qaeda? Answer: It has nukes.

nonsense. pakistan is doing a lot to capture al qaeda operatives, especially at the border (at least cosmetically).

ask yourself, what benefits does the incumbent republican government in the US stand to reap with the invasion of iraq?

now, ask yourself a similar question: what benefits do they reap with the invasion of pakistan? with korea? with israel? with iran?

c'mon guys! don't gobble up everything the media splashes too quickly.

[digimushu]

Evil? can we say that any country is truly evil?
I believe good and evil is a relative term when we talk about governments. Every government is doing something for its own interests. Whether is for the good of the people, that remains to be seen.

The US has been involved with the toppling and setting up of many 'ally' governments. Who helped with the toppling of the shah in Iran? Who decided to back up suharto last time? Who put Saddam where he was? Who trained Osama to go against the russians? I think what the US is experiencing today is a result of its own actions.

Executing a preemptive strike without the approval of the UN seriously undermines the power of the UN. think about it this way, why did israel violate the cease fire with the palistines? By giving the UN 'the finger', the US basically made the whole world treat the UN as a big joke. This could have serious implications. Does it mean that you can do whatever you want if you are allied with the correct people?

[__earth]

Yup. I wonder why the US threw a blind eye (or it seems to be the case) at the "mushroom cloud" in Korea. Maybe it is a political strategy but if it's not,....

Maybe their issue is not WMD, but something else.

No. The US didn't throw a blind eye. If you follow the development of North Korea's mushroom cloud, it was mountain blowing activities to make way for a dam. It was no a way nuclear testing since nobody detect any paranormal radioactivity. In fact, a German diplomat has visited the site of the explosion.

likewise, why is the "senior US official" asking about iran? why aren't there any more serious reactions to korea's mushroom cloud? israel's nuclear project in dimona was an open secret but little was done about it. what about that?

i hope everyone pauses to think about these issues when commenting about iran. then again, they may be developing bombs for malicious use. then again, maybe malaysia is too....

I agree with you. In fact, when I said deja vu in the first post, I meant to mention the US alleged proofs of what it seems to be Iraq's non-existing WMD. I am not saying that Iran has nuclear capability for military purpose for certain.

But, when it comes to Iran, it's not the just the US that suspects Iran is developing nuclear weapon. The EU and the UN suspect the same thing though nobody could confirm the suspicion yet. I am sure everybody doubts what the US says these days because of the Iraqi fiasco.

At the same time, nobody trust Iran anymore. Iran has lied about it nuclear capability a few months ago. It had said that it has no nuclear capability, not even for power generating purpose. But later, the world found out about Iran's nuclear plant. Iran indeed has civil nuclear capability.

And right now, Iran and the US are playing cat and mouse, or so it seems. Both know something that the other does not know. We OTOH don't know anything.

Executing a preemptive strike without the approval of the UN seriously undermines the power of the UN. think about it this way, why did israel violate the cease fire with the palistines? By giving the UN 'the finger', the US basically made the whole world treat the UN as a big joke. This could have serious implications. Does it mean that you can do whatever you want if you are allied with the correct people?

Let me address your third point (I could address your first and second point, but it going to go off topic).

Many people have high regard of the UN, after all we are taught in schools that the UN is a good organization that have done a lot of good for humanity. But essentially you must also understand that the UN is a political entity with the permanent members of the (SC) security council (US, UK, France, Russia, China) being the dominating power. In that council, the US holds the biggest say, although sometimes the French and Russian would cooperate to counter the US.

Being a political entity (where each nation is NOT equally represented), it acts in its own self interest. The Rwanda genocide provides a good example. The UN did virtually nothing to stop the genocide, even at the request of many African nation, because no nation in the SC had any interest in the African conflict. And the ongoing genocide in Sudan provides another point in case. To the SC members, this is an African problem and they are not going to sacrifice troops just to save Africans.

Now, you still want to trust the UN to decide important issues?

[Thirdshifter]

But, when it comes to Iran, it's not the just the US that suspects Iran is developing nuclear weapon. The EU and the UN suspect the same thing though nobody could confirm the suspicion yet. I am sure everybody doubts what the US says these days because of the Iraqi fiasco.

Actually, Everyone had the same suspicion about Iraq and WMD. Even Kerry was convinced. Putin and EU as well. UN also shared the same suspicion but asked Bush to hold off until the inspection was over. The only reason why the war in Iraq wasn't popular is because of the UN security council not giving it a go. Considering France was proven to have some sort of backdoor deal with Iraq during it's sanction years and Syria? in a technicality perspective the war is justifiable because of Iraq constant refusal to go along with the treaty they signed after Gulf war 1. There were multiple violations that was commited and the few Tomahawks Clinton fired in 96 is just basically the same thing we see today. Only one is more extravagant.

[digimushu]

hrm..good point, but i never said the UN was perfect. nor did i say the US is 'evil'.

Damn...i was hoping u wont notice the Sudan thing...hehehe

its just that no one government can be the one that decides who is good or who is bad. Remember when the US cruise missiles mistakenly took down a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan with claims that it is manufacturing WMD? Although Clinton apologized later, this proves that nobody is perfect. We can always try to be fair, but the world will never be completely fair and impartial.

with that being said, do you trust any country to decide who is good or bad?

[__earth]

Actually, Everyone had the same suspicion about Iraq and WMD. Even Kerry was convinced. Putin and EU as well. UN also shared the same suspicion but asked Bush to hold off until the inspection was over. The only reason why the war in Iraq wasn't popular is because of the UN security council not giving it a go. Considering France was proven to have some sort of backdoor deal with Iraq during it's sanction years and Syria? in a technicality perspective the war is justifiable because of Iraq constant refusal to go along with the treaty they signed after Gulf war 1. There were multiple violations that was commited and the few Tomahawks Clinton fired in 96 is just basically the same thing we see today. Only one is more extravagant.

Before the invasion of Iraq, the weapon inspectors, hans blix and a few others hinted that Iraq did not have WMD as Powell as stated at the Security Council. In fact, the refusal to go to war on the UN side was because of the lack of belief that Iraq had WMD.

Now, you still want to trust the UN to decide important issues?

Yes, the UN is a political entity. Almost every organization is a political entity to a certain degree.

The UN must decide on most international issue. If the UN does not, then every country will act without regard of an international community, as what had happened to the League of Nations. If that happens to the UN, then it will be harder to make a decision to many other issues that need multilateral actions.

The only way to solve the excessive power of the 5 veto powers is to desolve the veto. Having a veto is pretty much undemocratic.

And notice, the one that are bypassing the UN are the ones that hold veto power itself. There had been call to make away with the veto but such call was fended away.