Should Iran have a nuclear bomb?

Message
Author
9000white
Site Supporter - Gold
Site Supporter - Gold
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:30 am
Sex: Male
Location: atlanta georgia

#21 Unread post by 9000white »

if the U.S had left israel alone years ago instead of whining as always about "innocent victims" israel would have wiped out most of the now current threat.as usual during the recent conflict in lebanon our local news only showed the poor innocent civilians killed there.no mention of terrorists.
dr bob

User avatar
sv-wolf
Site Supporter - Platinum
Site Supporter - Platinum
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:06 am
Real Name: Richard
Sex: Male
Years Riding: 12
My Motorcycle: Honda Fireblade, 2004: Suzuki DR650, 201
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

#22 Unread post by sv-wolf »

Hi Swatter555

Just to get a few things straight.

First, sorry. Brit humour. ‘Answers on a postcard please’ is a cant phrase deriving from BBC competitions before the coming of email. I used it ironically to indicate despair (mine) at the lack of any apparent solution to this situation.

Thank you for agreeing that I ‘tell half the story’. That is more than the Western media would admit. And it is also the point I am making (which I think you missed). I am not in the slightest bit interested in justifying the actions of the Iranian government which in my view are every bit as corrupt, aggressive, irrational, self-deluding and manipulative as those of the United States and Great Britain. However, they are not 'mad' in the comic book sense that the media likes to present.

As for bias in the media, how often these days do we get a serious news report on Israel’s commitment to the destruction of Palestine? Or one which questions the notion that it was an action by Palastinian 'terrorists' that ‘caused ‘ Israel to attack Lebanon, when there has been an ongoing "lightbulb"-for-tat (Edit :lol: the censorbot is working overtime tonight) exchange of atrocities (overwhelmingly on the part of Israel) between the two sides for years?

Who you think is responsible for the present Middle Eastern situation depends, like the current Lebanon conflict, on where you choose to draw your bottom line. You could go right back. The Middle East is a largely Western construction. Its tyrannical rulers were largely installed and maintained by the West in its own self interest. Would the Mullahs have come to power if the United States had not installed the wholly despotic and unbelievably vicious regime of the Shah, and supported all his crimes (just as they did with Saddam Hussein until he had outlived his usefulness.) I don’t know? But I doubt if we would be in quite the mess we are in now if it hadn’t.

I would disagree strongly with your point that the Middle Eastern media is more irresponsible than its counterpart in the West. Right from its beginnings the Western mass media has consistently supported the genocidal and self-interested activities of Western governments by highly slanted and downright lying news reports. It therefore bears a huge weight of responsibility for a vast amount of bloodshed this old earth has had to suffer down the years.

In almost every media report I have ever read there seems to be a simple assumption, that the 'enemies of the West' are somehow deranged, evil and malicious, evil, while Western governments, though they make the occasional 'mistake' are largely well-balanced, rational, benign and well-meaning. This is an ideological steroetype and, like all stereotypes, wholly false - on both sides.

Whether Iranian propaganda (holocaust denial, character assassination etc) is believed by those who propound it or not doesn’t really matter. It is no different from and no more accurate than the kinds of propaganda put out by the West (which for instance invented a genocide ordered by Milosovic to justify the bombing of Serbia by Clinton.)

The term, ‘Weapons of mass destruction,’ means different things to different people. There is no standard international definition. From my perspective, any weapon which causes indiscriminate harm to innocent lives is a WMD and that includes cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells. Your own government’s definition would seem to support this view. It has successfully convicted people under laws against possession of WMD who have been found with truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, etc.

There are no ‘acceptable tactics’ in war when the war is conducted out of self interest on a largely civilian population (i.e. all of them).

Hitler did not gobble up the Rhineland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria because he was mad. He was pursuing an entirely rational expansionist policy on behalf of a German economy that had been hobbled for twenty years by the Treaty of Versailles. Of course, the toll of human life that resulted from his actions might mark him out as morally deranged. But then the same could be said of Bush and Blair in their attack upon Iraq and of course, elsewhere. That’s my point.

What I hear in your reply to my post (correct me if I'm wrong) is a justification of the Western/Israeli governmental position, and a demonising of Arab nations, Iran in particular. Sounds pretty familiar to me.
Hud

“Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform: he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder.”
Percy Bysshe Shelley

SV-Wolf's Bike Blog

User avatar
Andrew
Legendary 500
Legendary 500
Posts: 521
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 11:53 am
Sex: Male
Location: San Antonio, TX

#23 Unread post by Andrew »

sv-wolf wrote: The term, ‘Weapons of mass destruction,’ means different things to different people. There is no standard international definition. From my perspective, any weapon which causes indiscriminate harm to innocent lives is a WMD and that includes cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells. Your own government’s definition would seem to support this view. It has successfully convicted people under laws against possession of WMD who have been found with truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, etc.

There are no ‘acceptable tactics’ in war when the war is conducted out of self interest on a largely civilian population (i.e. all of them).
Uranium rounds are as discriminate as a rifle round. They're used for their density and ability to penetrate armor. It's about the furthest thing from a WMD as possible. By your definition, any weapon, including small arms can be included in the WMD umbrella. If you do this how do you distinguish between the massive destruction caused by the standard definition of WMD(nukes, bio and chem) and your definition?
2004 BMW K1200RS
[img]http://www.bmwlt.com/forums/images/smilies/BMWsmile.gif[/img]

User avatar
GhosT RideR
Regular
Regular
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 4:34 am
Sex: Male

#24 Unread post by GhosT RideR »

ahh.. i don't think anyone should have it if the others cant have it.
I'm Pat and hopefully will be out there riding soon!

crazy5dave
Elite
Elite
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:57 am
Sex: Male
Location: Nagoya, Japan

#25 Unread post by crazy5dave »

Every nation on earth that wants Nuclear weapons should be allowed to have them. Its your right. Especially all crackpot dictator lead regimes. I would be very happy to see Iran get some nuclear weapons technology. In fact i think the US should give them the technology for free. We could drop some off at 30,000 feet from our B2 delivey trucks with only a 24 hour notice. The Air forces overnight delivery service works very well i hear. Every capital could then see for themselves what good America technology we can export.

Its a pity they polute the environment so. :(

Bachstrad37
Legendary 300
Legendary 300
Posts: 427
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:40 am
Sex: Male
Location: Duluth, MN

#26 Unread post by Bachstrad37 »

crazy5dave wrote:Every nation on earth that wants Nuclear weapons should be allowed to have them. Its your right. Especially all crackpot dictator lead regimes. I would be very happy to see Iran get some nuclear weapons technology. In fact i think the US should give them the technology for free. We could drop some off at 30,000 feet from our B2 delivey trucks with only a 24 hour notice. The Air forces overnight delivery service works very well i hear. Every capital could then see for themselves what good America technology we can export.

Its a pity they polute the environment so. :(
Hard to detect sarcasm over a written text over the internet, but if you are serious...YOU' A FUGGIN LUNATIC!!!!

The problem here isn't whether a country has it or not. It's how a government is structured that causes concern. Some governments are rogue like in operation which has no check and balance in order to lay down the hammer. This is not an few submachine guns or jets. When people compare the impact that a weapon can cause, nuclear warheads and depleted uranium rounds aren't even in the same ball park. Hell, it isn't even the same sport.

Edit: I think you're trying personally to "pee" me off!
2003 VN1500P Kawasaki Mean Streak
2009 Yamaha Nytro FX

User avatar
scan
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:43 am
Sex: Male
Years Riding: 8
My Motorcycle: 2003 Kawasaki ZRX1200R
Location: Yellow Springs, OH

#27 Unread post by scan »

Andrew wrote:Uranium rounds are as discriminate as a rifle round. They're used for their density and ability to penetrate armor. It's about the furthest thing from a WMD as possible. By your definition, any weapon, including small arms can be included in the WMD umbrella. If you do this how do you distinguish between the massive destruction caused by the standard definition of WMD(nukes, bio and chem) and your definition?
I do know where he's coming from though. I have heard the reports of the possible side effect of uranium rounds. It has been debated with facts on both sides, so it is hard for me to decide who is right, but there is a factor of damage beyond the bullet itself, or so it seems. Firing the rounds, or being near where they are striking may have some radiation related effects that are not 100% proven.

So, although I see you are saying armor cutting bullet are not WMD, the effect of using these weapons, either to our troops or those who oppose our troops (notice I didn't use enemy), is possibly damage beyond the guy or equiptment at which you aimed.

So I'll stay on the fence and say I can understand both points, but both points have a vested intrest in making the other look crazy. I don't mean SV-Wolf and Andrew, but the pro and con uranium round crowd.
* 2003 Kawasaki ZRX1200R *
"What good fortune for those of us in power that people do not think. " Hitler - think about that one for a minute.

User avatar
sv-wolf
Site Supporter - Platinum
Site Supporter - Platinum
Posts: 2278
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:06 am
Real Name: Richard
Sex: Male
Years Riding: 12
My Motorcycle: Honda Fireblade, 2004: Suzuki DR650, 201
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

#28 Unread post by sv-wolf »

Andrew wrote:
Uranium rounds are as discriminate as a rifle round. They're used for their density and ability to penetrate armor. It's about the furthest thing from a WMD as possible. By your definition, any weapon, including small arms can be included in the WMD umbrella. If you do this how do you distinguish between the massive destruction caused by the standard definition of WMD(nukes, bio and chem) and your definition?
Uranium rounds are as targeted as ordinary rifle rounds, but their immediate effects extend over a much wider area because of the enormous heat they can generate. However, that is not the issue. It is the lingering presence of uranium in the ecosystem after their use that qualifies them for the title of WMD. This continued presence can be devastating to any resident population. Research still goes on into the exact effects of these weapons but the Pentagon, for example, has known about (and quietly admitted) the highly indiscriminate 'after effects' of depleted uranium since at least the time of the 1991 Iraqi debacle.

If you are a government or military bureaucrat with a diminished sense of moral responsibility (it goes with the job) you will discriminate between the effects of different forms of WMD by doing a headcount and assessing the cost of the damage. For the sake of administrative convenience, you might want to to distinguish categories of these weapons based quantitatively on the number of lives lost and the damage caused.

From an ethical perspective, the use of weapons that cause indiscriminate maiming or death to civilian populations is irresponsible however many are killed. They are all WMD.

What view you take will depend on whether you are an establishment number cruncher or not.
Hud

“Man has no right to kill his brother. It is no excuse that he does so in uniform: he only adds the infamy of servitude to the crime of murder.”
Percy Bysshe Shelley

SV-Wolf's Bike Blog

User avatar
swatter555
Legendary 300
Legendary 300
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:21 pm
Sex: Male
Location: Saint Louis,MO

#29 Unread post by swatter555 »

sv-wolf wrote:Hi Swatter555

Just to get a few things straight.

First, sorry. Brit humour. ‘Answers on a postcard please’ is a cant phrase deriving from BBC competitions before the coming of email. I used it ironically to indicate despair (mine) at the lack of any apparent solution to this situation.

Thank you for agreeing that I ‘tell half the story’. That is more than the Western media would admit. And it is also the point I am making (which I think you missed). I am not in the slightest bit interested in justifying the actions of the Iranian government which in my view are every bit as corrupt, aggressive, irrational, self-deluding and manipulative as those of the United States and Great Britain. However, they are not 'mad' in the comic book sense that the media likes to present.

As for bias in the media, how often these days do we get a serious news report on Israel’s commitment to the destruction of Palestine? Or one which questions the notion that it was an action by Palastinian 'terrorists' that ‘caused ‘ Israel to attack Lebanon, when there has been an ongoing "lightbulb"-for-tat (Edit :lol: the censorbot is working overtime tonight) exchange of atrocities (overwhelmingly on the part of Israel) between the two sides for years?

Who you think is responsible for the present Middle Eastern situation depends, like the current Lebanon conflict, on where you choose to draw your bottom line. You could go right back. The Middle East is a largely Western construction. Its tyrannical rulers were largely installed and maintained by the West in its own self interest. Would the Mullahs have come to power if the United States had not installed the wholly despotic and unbelievably vicious regime of the Shah, and supported all his crimes (just as they did with Saddam Hussein until he had outlived his usefulness.) I don’t know? But I doubt if we would be in quite the mess we are in now if it hadn’t.

I would disagree strongly with your point that the Middle Eastern media is more irresponsible than its counterpart in the West. Right from its beginnings the Western mass media has consistently supported the genocidal and self-interested activities of Western governments by highly slanted and downright lying news reports. It therefore bears a huge weight of responsibility for a vast amount of bloodshed this old earth has had to suffer down the years.

In almost every media report I have ever read there seems to be a simple assumption, that the 'enemies of the West' are somehow deranged, evil and malicious, evil, while Western governments, though they make the occasional 'mistake' are largely well-balanced, rational, benign and well-meaning. This is an ideological steroetype and, like all stereotypes, wholly false - on both sides.

Whether Iranian propaganda (holocaust denial, character assassination etc) is believed by those who propound it or not doesn’t really matter. It is no different from and no more accurate than the kinds of propaganda put out by the West (which for instance invented a genocide ordered by Milosovic to justify the bombing of Serbia by Clinton.)

The term, ‘Weapons of mass destruction,’ means different things to different people. There is no standard international definition. From my perspective, any weapon which causes indiscriminate harm to innocent lives is a WMD and that includes cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells. Your own government’s definition would seem to support this view. It has successfully convicted people under laws against possession of WMD who have been found with truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, etc.

There are no ‘acceptable tactics’ in war when the war is conducted out of self interest on a largely civilian population (i.e. all of them).

Hitler did not gobble up the Rhineland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria because he was mad. He was pursuing an entirely rational expansionist policy on behalf of a German economy that had been hobbled for twenty years by the Treaty of Versailles. Of course, the toll of human life that resulted from his actions might mark him out as morally deranged. But then the same could be said of Bush and Blair in their attack upon Iraq and of course, elsewhere. That’s my point.

What I hear in your reply to my post (correct me if I'm wrong) is a justification of the Western/Israeli governmental position, and a demonising of Arab nations, Iran in particular. Sounds pretty familiar to me.

It seems you have an overall point of view that of moral equivalance. In your view the elected governments of the western world are no better than the dictatorships that use secret police to hold onto power in the Middle East. And if there are dictatorships in the Middle East, it is the fault of the west anyway. It seems to be a no-win situation with you. Nevermind that during the 60s Arab nationalism took hold in the Middle East and is ultimately responsible for the politcial outlook there today.

Also, to mention Bush, Blair, and Hitler in the same paragraph is just wrong. It is a veiled comparision and ultimately reinforces the forgetfullness and ignorance of the real horrors that occured in Europe during the 30s and 40s.

Also, your comparision of Western media and the Middle Eastern media is flawed. Nevermind that the vast majority of the media in the ME is state run. Even the few media outlets that are not state run have coverage that is immersed in religion. The Western media prides itself on challenging the government and keeping them honest. The New York Times for example has runs hundreds of news stories and editorials that are highly critical of the govt here in the US in the past few years. The media coverage is not even comparable. During the last crisis in Lebanon, I saw all points of view portrayed in the US media. The same cannot be said in the ME media. You are entitled to your own opinion, but your not entitled to your own facts.

-------------
"Whether Iranian propaganda (holocaust denial, character assassination etc) is believed by those who propound it or not doesn’t really matter. It is no different from and no more accurate than the kinds of propaganda put out by the West (which for instance invented a genocide ordered by Milosovic to justify the bombing of Serbia by Clinton.) "
-------------

You are kinda letting your bias overwhelm your common sense. Ethnic cleansing was the term I heard the majority of the time from the govts and media in the West. It is a fact that was occuring. There is reams of evidence to support that. The bombing was justified and it is a shame that NATO waited so long to forcefully intervence in Yugoslavia. We have a large Bosnian community where I live and I know people who know first hand what happened in Bosnia. Genocide as an adjective is not a stretch for what was occuring in Yugoslavia in the 90s. I know the people.

On the other hand, holocaust denial has more to do with idealogy rather than facts. The evidence that the holocaust occured is beyond denial for rational people who are interested in truth. So, to compare propaganda about holocaust denial and justifications for bombing Serbia shows that your bias is overwhelming your ability to make a decent argument.


-------------------
"In almost every media report I have ever read there seems to be a simple assumption, that the 'enemies of the West' are somehow deranged, evil and malicious, evil, while Western governments, though they make the occasional 'mistake' are largely well-balanced, rational, benign and well-meaning. This is an ideological steroetype and, like all stereotypes, wholly false - on both sides. "
-------------------

The media does not go out of its way to point out the lighter side of Osama Bin Laden, and your condemning them for that? I have seen hundreds if not thousands of news stories that point out that not only is OBL completely sane, but also intelligent and cunning. They also point out that he justifies murdering civilians through twisted interpretations of the Koran. Some, a minority, would rather label him as evil. Thats fine, but that is be no means a description of the media in general.

In the end, you seem to be making detached judgements. You seem to see a piece of evidence that supports your personal idealogy and assume that is the case for everything. Your comments about the media are provable false or not provable at all. The media is responsible for most of the bloodshed in the world?? Bring me one FACT that would support that argument. I think you are immersed in the propaganda of your own choosing and wouldn't even listen to facts that would pull you out of your own little world.

User avatar
flynrider
Legendary 2000
Legendary 2000
Posts: 2391
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:36 pm
Sex: Male
Years Riding: 30
My Motorcycle: '93 Honda Nighthawk 750
Location: Phoenix, AZ

#30 Unread post by flynrider »

jmillheiser wrote: North Korea has missiles that can deliver a nuke to the western US and just about anywhere in Asia.
Well, not quite yet. The July test of the Taepodong-2 ICBM was a complete failure. That doesn't mean they won't get it right eventually, though.
Bikin' John
'93 Honda CB750 Nighthawk

Post Reply