Nukes: US - Yes. Iran - No

[Jack_Dawson]

Why do we get nukes and Iran doesn't? India is allowed to, but North Korea isn't. China and France? Green light. Iraq? Hell no. Who decides? Thanks.

[Village Idiot]

1. How about Israel?

"With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized as such."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

[htuttle]

2. It looks like we decide, since we got the most nukes

We truly ARE living on the Planet of the Apes.

Is that funny, or scary, or both?

[leveymg]

5. "It's a mad house. A mad house".

"YOU MANIACS. YOU BLEW IT UP. DAMN YOU. GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL."

[jaxx]

3. W decides. Period. And that is one scary thought.

Who's going to be in the coalition today? Goody, then give them nukes. Israel might bomb Iran, goody maybe we can do it first.

[jpak]

4. Junior's going to New Delhi next month to sign an agreement

lifting the ban of sales/transfer of US nuclear technology to India.

It's a sick hypocritical reward for India's development of nuclear weapons and a bonanza for GOP-connected nuclear tech vendors.

So much for advancing the cause of nuclear nonproliferation...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Be slightly careful on this issue.

I worry that I've seen several liberals who've clearly decided that if President Bush doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons then it must be a good thing if it did.

While the USA having nuclear weapons and Iran not is a bad thing, the USA and Iran both having nuclear weapons is a much worse one.

Ahmadinejad is a president who makes Bush look like a nice piece of work, and that's saying something. Iran getting nuclear weapons would be very bad news indeed.

[Delphinus]

7. But, from what I understand,

Iran isn't WANTING nukes! They want nuclear energy. Big difference.

[jpak]

9. Yup

n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Possibly.

There's no proof either way. However, it looks more likely than not, as I understand it, that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at producing weapons as well as power.

Certainly, their refusal to allow inspections is suspicious. Arguably they have a *right* to refuse inspections if they choose to, but I don't think they *would* if they didn't have anything to hide, given that they must know the consequences of being suspected and that they are unlikely to be given the benefit of any doubt they allow to exist.

[northzax]

15. first off, of course they want nuclear weapons

at least there is a faction within the country that wants them. They live in a world where the two greatest threats to their internal security and regional abitions, the US and Israel, both have nuclear weapons (and yes, Iran is a threat to the internal security of Israel and the regional ambitrions of both the US and Israel, so it goes both ways)

in an unstable world, the only security is nuclear weapons. Do you think that if Iraq had a functioning nuclear weapon the US would have invaded? not a chance. Nuclear powers don't go to war with each other unless there is no other choice. Iran sees itself as the leader of the Middle East, and nuclear weapons are part and parcel of that ambition.

That said, wanting nuclear weapons and having the real potential to obtain them are completely different things. First off, it's not easy or cheap, and second off, the possibility of developing them is a great bargaining chip for the rest of the world.

[Trish1168]

11. see my post below. its about the bourse...not nukes

I hope everyone does a google search on this issue.

Type 'Iran, oil, bourse' and look if you don't believe me.

Think about it. One intelligence report was released last year that said Iran is at least 10 years away from a weapon. Now a new one was leaked that said they were two years away. Of course....it sounds like (according the NY Times' James Risen) that the US helped them by giving them the technology. Why would they do that? Look up about the bourse and you'll see.

All the hype about nuclear weapons is just that....hype.

The Shah of Iran was given the go ahead for a nuclear reactor (and Cheney was involved in this, because Ford was president). The Shah was a nasty US backed dictator, and maybe he wanted a bomb, but...it could well be that they wanted to use nuclear reactors for electricity too, because oil at the time was more valuable than uranium and the population growth in Iran was very high.

Look it up and decide for yourself.

[Trish1168]

8. Don't forget about Pakistan !! This is all really about the bourse

A bourse is a new exchange...like a stock exchange (in this case, an exchange for the commodity of oil). If Iran has a bourse (its supposed to be in March), then all the countries who buy oil from Iran can easily exchange their dollars for euros.

First they want sanctions, because this will halt the trading. But, if Russia and China say no to sanctions (as is likely, because they'd like to spank us).....then we have to bomb Iran (maybe even nuke them).

If we don't, then our dollar collapses. Its really that simple.

This is why dems and repubs are both on board with this. They know what's at stake. Not that I condone this.

We did this to ourselves when we allowed Nixon to take us off the Gold standard. In a way, this is blowback from our last unnecessary imperialistic war of choice. It was vietnam (the cost of it) that led to Nixon unpegging the dollar from gold. Always a no no. Our founding fathers printed their own currency during the revolutionary war. It tanked and became worthless when they printed too much (the economy faltered and the war effort was in trouble). As a result, they put in our constitution that all currency had to be gold and silver. Excerpt of constitution is below.
.................................
Section 10 - States prohibited from the exercise of certain powers.
1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. ]
........................

This page goes over some of the issue relating to dollar imperialism and the bourse, but doing a search should also provide insight.
(FYI...the language on this page is a bit over the top...like when they say demonic cabal, but they're generally right in their thinking.)

By the way....the Fed will stop releasing M3 (money supply) data in March!! (in case you don't believe that this bourse is really what its all about).
http://www.new-enlightenment.com/dollar_imperialism.htm

[Odin2005]

12. Reality trumps fairness as far as I'm concerned.

I'm fine with countries using nuclear energy for PEACEFUL PURPOSES. But I will not go along with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If this be hypocracy, so be it. keeping the chances of a nuclear war low is more important than "fairness". Ideally, I would like all nuclear weapons to be distroyed, but that ain't going to happen in my lifetime. The best we can do is to prevent more countries from getting them, hence the IAEA. Unfortunately *'s Axis of Evil speech just encouraged Iran to want nukes, and *'s little crusade against Saddam means we can't do anything about it. Neocons = Morons. :banghead:

[philarq]

13. Allow me to consult the Official ---

U.S. Foreign policy Magic 8-Ball

the answer is: "Reply hazy, try again. "

[tsuki]

14. I forgot about the Magic 8-Ball. Too Funny!

[Nutmegger]

16. Well we're the big bad bully

so that's why. No one should have nuclear weapons; not the US, not Iran, NOBODY!

Jay-sus, how many freaking warheads does China have sitting around? But as long as they're prostituting themselves to Wal-Mart we won't touch them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Mmm

Actually, I suspect it's more "while they have nuclear warheads you won't touch them"...

I think that it would be a very good thing if those countries currently with nuclear arsenals got rid of them. I see no prospect of this happening in the near future, alas, but I wouldn't rule out seeing it before I die.

I think that it would be a very bad thing if more countries, especially ones with regimes as unpleasant as Iran's, were allowed to join that number.

[G_j]

18. Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html

washingtonpost.com
Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.

..more..