Re: More on Iran's atoms.

> > I'd like a more specific response as to who was threatening Iran before
> > their admission about violating the NPT. Like actual countries -
> > statements - that kind of thing. You know....*facts*.
>
> Note they only admitted nuclear power development *not* nuclear bomb
> development. That's being driven by economic not military concerns.
> The threat to Iran would be once they started running out of oil.
> They only have a limited amount of time to build a self-sustaining
> industrial infrastructure and that has to be nuclear based.
>
> Plus, once the oil starts running out and the price starts shooting up
> they will be well positioned, energy cost-wise, for exports of their
> industrial and agricultural products.
>
> It makes sense for Iran to go nuclear just like it makes sense for the
> US or any other industrial nation to go nuclear. The oil's going
> bye-bye.

I'll just take it that you don't know of anyone threatening Iran and has no
reason to need nukes for defence. I've asked twice and you seem to be
answering some other question.



> > (Yes, I know Israel ruminiated on the possibility of taking out some key
> > Iranian targets, but that was after Iran's antics came to light.)
>
> And that supports why Iran said they kept it secret.

The point being Iran had no reason to keep any secrets based on 'threats'.
There were no threats against her before she decided to violate the NPT, and
Israel was merely responding, in a very controlled and measured manner, to
the mullahs call to wipe her off the map


> > > > > Then watch them very closely - sending the IAEA teams around to
any
> > > > > area thought suspicious. Give Israel, the only nuclear power in
the
> > > > > Middle East, a 2 year deadline to sign the NPT and accept IAEA
> > > > > inspectors.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I've been waiting for this card to be played. I think anything
> > that
> > > > requires Israel to admit her nuclear capability is a mistake in the
long
> > > > run.
> > >
> > > The 'Strategic Ambiguity' is a bit threadbare don't you think? (I'm
> > > intersted in who tested all those different models of war heads for
the
> > > Israelis. South Africa did some I believe but there must be around 15
> > > different kinds in their arsenal.)
> > >
> > > I don't think it would hurt Israel one bit to admit nukes now.
> >
> > Of course it would. One thing you don't want your enemy to have is
> > information about the size of your arsenal. That's pretty much common
sense.
>
> The US and Russia had no problems sharing arsenal sizes. Beyond a
> certain number the precise count doesn't matter much.
>
> And I only said admit. They don't have to supply quantities and
> locations.

I would imagine the IAEA inspectors you want them to allow would do a basic
accounting.


>
> >
> > > > Not until she is surrounded by democracies should she give one inch
> > > > here.
> > >
> > > Personally, I think Israel is lucky *not* to have been surrounded by
> > > democracies. Democracies would have been so very hard to manage by
the
> > > US and allies, and anti-Israeli public sentiment in the surrounding
> > > countries would have be expressed more forcefully than what we have
> > > seen.
> >
> > I'm not sure how much 'management' the US has been doing in the region,
I
> > know moonbats like Cole and Raimondo tend to blow that horn a lot, so
I'm
> > not surprised you're convinced. However democracies dont' need to be
> > managed. They tend to be friendly to each other.
>
> No, I think you may be wrong on that one.

No, I'm afraid I'm not. And I'm fairly certain even you have heard of the
bipolar world that existed pre 1989. The point however stands, democracies
don't tend to need to be managed.


> > > In my opinion, if you want harm to come to Israel then wish for all
> > > it's neighbors to become suddenly democratic.
> >
> > Do you have an opinion that doesn't fly in the face of the last 50 years
of
> > geopolitical history? Or are you of the opinion that its not the
governments
> > but the people of the region who want to annihilate Israel? Considering
the
> > fact that you've never been to the region, and considering the fact that
> > information coming out of those countries tends to be tightly
controlled,
> > I'd wonder how you arrive at that conclusion.
>
> I said it was my opinion. The people of the region seem more
> anti-Israeli than the governments of the region are prepared to act.
> Once the people become the government...

So you think its the people. I'm more skeptical. I think its the
governments. I imagine the average saudi or Iranian couldn't give two shits
about the Palestinians or even israel, but their governments like to use
those topics to whip up domestic support and engineer some credibility.

I think that's one of the reasons Iran has been ratcheing up the belligerent
rhetoric towards Israel lately. Caught lying they are now trying to gain
some domestic legitimacy by saying its all for Israel. Then they play a few
tv shows about how Jews harvest palestinian organs, and show some drama
based on the protocols, and *voila*, instant boogeyman.


.

Quantcast