Nuclear Iran

[Delfos]

and then, the security report from CIA or whatever gone to Iran from US side, concluded Iran isn't building any Nuclear weaponry. How surprising! Will everyone just abandon the idea of Iran being in the "Axis of Evil" (LMAO, I always laugh at the concept), or do you have 2nd thoughts about Iran and this report?

[Myroria]

Iran still isn't exactly a nice country, but Bush's "intelligence" is usually very crappy.

For example, with the disproven Iraq WMDs:

Blix told us they didn't have them. The UN told us they didn't have them. The Pentagon told Bush they didn't have them.

So, don't take Bush's own intelligence as being on par with that of real government agencies, set up by the real government: Congress.

[Bender1968]

Iran, just like North Korea and several other nations should not have anything with the word nuclear in it.  If you want to argue about Bush's intelligence reports and who has what, that's fine.  To say "well let's give everyone nuclear power capability and make everyone equal" is a bad idea.  There are 2 reasons, first one is you don't a a megalomaniac dictator nuclear weapons.  A lot of dictators don't start off that way, its only when they get the taste of power that they change.  Second of all, there are always going to be the "have's" and the "have-nots" in the world.  When it comes to anything nuclear, the "have's" should be kept to a small a group as possible.  The idea of "let's trust him until he screws us", is a child like way to approach any kind of international diplomacy.  If you think I'm wrong, play some poker with people you don't know. That'll change how you deal with people really quick.

[Anniane]

Indeed. Nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable regime (North Korea) or one with rather disturbing fundamentalist leadership would not be a good thing.

Will everyone just abandon the idea of Iran being in the "Axis of Evil" (LMAO, I always laugh at the concept)

While I am, as you are, not enthused by David Frum's turn of phrase, I would caution against your implication that this report  repudiates any claim of Iran's "evil" in the international community. Iran is a dangerous, terror-harboring (see also here) state whose fundamentalist leadership undermines its own country and others around it. This may not be the shallow definition of the "Axis" in your imagination or Republican party rhetoric, but I think Iran deserves a bit more of a wary eye and a sharpened carrot than you might think.

[Gulliver]

Indeed, Annex raises a very valid point. Pointed carrots would be very affective at piercing Iran's nuclear facilities to maximize the effect of any warhead's payload. But lo and behold, I believe that there is a good chance that our hippie friends from the left will decry such an abuse of our vegetative brethren and as true traitors place the lives of a few carrots before those of countless innocent humans.

[Anniane]

I believe you meant to say "lo and behold". And with "hippie friends" I believe you have included an extraneous noun.

And yes, Pragmia, that is precisely what I intended to say (otherwise).

[Gulliver]

Of course it is. Even the shack people would be able to see this.

[Delfos]

Iran is a dangerous, terror-harboring

As much as USA from someone else point of view. If it makes sense to you to call the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, then it must make sense to them to call the CIA or...NSA a terrorist group. Actually the purposes are very similar.

[Bender1968]

As much as USA from someone else point of view. If it makes sense to you to call the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, then it must make sense to them to call the CIA or...NSA a terrorist group. Actually the purposes are very similar.

You're getting close.  The Revolutionary Guard is an army, the CIA and NSA are organizations that can sever ties to any activity and are indirectly connected to said activities.  You do have to keep a wary eye on Iran, just like you do Lybia, North Korea and a bunch of other smaller nations.  Just to clarify things, the "Axis of Evil" was Iraq, Iran and North Korea.  3 countries you shouldn't trust as far as you can throw them. 

[Anniane]

Iran is a dangerous, terror-harboring

As much as USA from someone else point of view. If it makes sense to you to call the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, then it must make sense to them to call the CIA or...NSA a terrorist group. Actually the purposes are very similar.

Your implicit conclusion that I cannot describe Iran as in the aforementioned quote is incorrect. I am wary of the CIA and NSA as well; by your own logic, therefore, as well as by my own, I believe this entitles me to criticize Iran. That said, we are considering not only the Revolutionary Guard, but Iran in totality, which I do hope you would not find so similar to the US; the Guard, then, has a distinctly different context to the "CIA or... NSA". Your statement of equivalence within this discussion has little bearing on the larger picture (Iran's threat in the international community); the CIA as a terrorist organization is far more of a tenuous straw man than it is a relevant point.

[Delfos]

Ah, there's where you fail. Iran isn't a threat to international community, it's a threat to US. Maybe it's time to elect a new President and apologize for all inconveniences. (damn this last word is fantastically fit)

All what Iran wants is what everyone wants, power and progress. Iran wants to export and import even more to Europe, but all this 'inconvenient' barriers are delaying the progress. Well yes Iran might be dangerous, but it's not a direct threat themselves. As Libya is dangerous, but I actually like Gaddafi style. It might not be 100% free, but  I'm want to see what comes out of Libya after he dies, I expect a good free democracy and progress of values.

What's wrong with them? Vietnam was because they were communists, now it's because Iran is another evil?
Quit playing wars and maybe you'll progress yourselves.

[Gulliver]

Delfos, you seem to have an incredibly poor understanding of the American political system. A new president will be elected come November 2008.

And when you say "Well yes Iran might be dangerous, but it's not a direct threat themselves" you've just stopped making sense entirely. They're dangerous, but they're not a threat? I believe that you've just contradicted yourself. Your position on this issue I suspect is at the core of things nothing more than a manifestation of irrational and insubstantial anti-American sentiment for the sake of itself. The great big bad United States takes issue with Iran, so therefore Iran must automatically be in the right, issues of political repression, state sponsored terrorism and so forth be damned.

And Libya? I've not heard anything out of that country recently which would lead me to expect any sort of democratic progress. Not to mention that you yourself admit that it's not exactly free (as in nigh universally recognized as an incredibly unfree state) and yet you seem able to in a second able to just sweep that all to the side and ignore it. Why? Well, as I speculated above, it's because the United States does not smile upon them. Ergo, they are without fault.

Irrational to me.

Come to think about it, you also say that all Iran wants is power and progress, just like everyone else. So tell me then, why is it okay when Iran wants these sorts of things but not when the United States does?

[Anniane]

Ah, there's where you fail. Iran isn't a threat to international community, it's a threat to US. Maybe it's time to elect a new President and apologize for all inconveniences. (damn this last word is fantastically fit)

All what Iran wants is what everyone wants, power and progress. Iran wants to export and import even more to Europe, but all this 'inconvenient' barriers are delaying the progress. Well yes Iran might be dangerous, but it's not a direct threat themselves. As Libya is dangerous, but I actually like Gaddafi style. It might not be 100% free, but  I'm want to see what comes out of Libya after he dies, I expect a good free democracy and progress of values.

What's wrong with them? Vietnam was because they were communists, now it's because Iran is another evil?
Quit playing wars and maybe you'll progress yourselves.

I'd agree with Pragmia here. This discussion is largely a war of definitions; I say "threat" and mean what you do by "dangerous". I don't advocate attacking Iran, I merely advocated being "wary" of it, which is warranted by your own admission of it being "dangerous". So I would like to avoid being caught in the particularly absurd straw man of War with Iran, if you don't mind.

I would like to ask of you, is Iran's system of government and society fine as it is? If not, then shouldn't it follow that we be "wary" of it?

Note: By international community, my apologies for using a term loosely, I do not mean EVERY nation. In this case I am more referring to the difficulties Iran creates for stability in its region (Iraq, terrorist support, etc.). Sure, Russia stands to profit quite considerably from selling weapons to Iran, but their benefit does not preclude me from considering Iran's threat to be "international". To say Iran could only be a threat to itself (i.e. undermining its own possible progress, which it is) is a rather narrowminded view of foreign affairs.

[Delfos]

Delfos, you seem to have an incredibly poor understanding of the American political system. A new president will be elected come November 2008.

And when you say "Well yes Iran might be dangerous, but it's not a direct threat themselves" you've just stopped making sense entirely. They're dangerous, but they're not a threat? I believe that you've just contradicted yourself. Your position on this issue I suspect is at the core of things nothing more than a manifestation of irrational and insubstantial anti-American sentiment for the sake of itself. The great big bad United States takes issue with Iran, so therefore Iran must automatically be in the right, issues of political repression, state sponsored terrorism and so forth be damned.

And Libya? I've not heard anything out of that country recently which would lead me to expect any sort of democratic progress. Not to mention that you yourself admit that it's not exactly free (as in nigh universally recognized as an incredibly unfree state) and yet you seem able to in a second able to just sweep that all to the side and ignore it. Why? Well, as I speculated above, it's because the United States does not smile upon them. Ergo, they are without fault.

Irrational to me.

Come to think about it, you also say that all Iran wants is power and progress, just like everyone else. So tell me then, why is it okay when Iran wants these sorts of things but not when the United States does?

That's quite an insinuation, remember, I was one of the 1st creating a topic about the 2008 US elections.

Being dangerous doesn't mean it's a threat. Riding a bike without hands is dangerous but it isn't a threat. Threat is when this dangerous entity makes us understand something repulsive about an action. Like if when riding without hands, I temporally loose control, that's a threat. Iran has made no threat to me, Iran is dangerous because it can develop threats that it can carry out, specially with allot of 'evil' people with power around there. Otherwise, they're not a threat themselves, Iran isn't threatening anything to my understanding. So what something about Israel, Israel says allot of BS too about Iran, they're a married couple.

Irrational to you, not surprising, you're trying to make reason assuming false standings.

[Bender1968]

Being dangerous doesn't mean it's a threat. Riding a bike without hands is dangerous but it isn't a threat. Threat is when this dangerous entity makes us understand something repulsive about an action. Like if when riding without hands, I temporally loose control, that's a threat. Iran has made no threat to me, Iran is dangerous because it can develop threats that it can carry out, specially with allot of 'evil' people with power around there. Otherwise, they're not a threat themselves, Iran isn't threatening anything to my understanding.

Now I have the whole picture.  As long as delfos isn't being threatened directly, no one is a threat.  That's like saying you can play with a chainsaw that's not running because its dangerous, but if it were running then you have to worry about it.  You use the riding a bike without hands analogy.   Why should I give you a bike if you're even hinting that you might not use your hands?  That makes you a threat just by that statement alone.  I would then have to warn my friends(allies) of your possible intentions and allow them to react accordingly.  Do you think Kim Jong Il is a threat or just dangerous?  Do you give him anything he wants and see what he does?