I don’t think any country should have nuclear weapons, including our own. The world would be a much safer place without it. But as long as we continue to make develop new nuclear weapons, I don’t see how we can argue that Iran can’t have them from a legal or moral perspective.

Then after I pointed out building nukes under the NPT is illegal, you changed to:

And Iran does not have them. They are enriching uranium, which is allowed under the NPT.

The NPT does not grant a prima facia right to enrichment, but to “peaceful nuclear technology.” The IAEA does not deny Iran’s right to enrichment for peaceful purposes, but it has every right to ensure that the enrichment is, in fact, peaceful. As a result, the IAEA and the international community have demanded a greater amount of transparency and accountability than is typically required, because Iran lied for over 20 years about it’s nuclear activities. As a result of Iranian deception, the IAEA cannot ensure that Iran has fully complied with its NPT obligations and Iran is unwilling to take the transparency and other other steps necessary to ensure it does not have undiscovered clandestine activities including a hidden military program. That is the crux of the issue and the core of the debate.

Even just tactical air strikes? (Which is all we could do thanks to the mess these folks have already managed to get us into).

Now onward.

I just don’t see war with Iran now as a viable option. They are 5 years at best from a nuke, and frankly given their failure to keep the cascades running for any length of time, probably 10. Plenty of time for diplomacy or sanctions to work their magic and surely plenty for time for war later if called for.

Acutally, war later is probalby far less costly as Chimpy won’t be in charge to mess it up. Given a 6 year history of not only making wrong choices regularly on the ME, but of also pathologically lying about it. And of refusing to change course unless thunked on the head repeatedly with a large clue-by-fours… Well, frankly the risks are just to high for failure now to escalate this much more now.

But as long as we continue to make develop new nuclear weapons, I don’t see how we can argue that Iran can’t have them from a legal or moral perspective.

DLS wrote:

Are you really that blind, or consumed by anti-US pathology (disease)?

DLS,

More than four years later and the most vocal defenders of Bush’s foreign policy continue to accuse those whom they disagree with of being “anti-US.”

If it’s not accusations of having an “anti-US” pathology, its accusations of being a part of the “Blame America crowd.”

If it’s not accusations of being a part of the “Blame America crowd”, it’s accusations of “hating Bush.”

If it’s not accusations of “hating Bush”, it’s accusations of having “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”

If it’s not accusations of having “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, it’s accusations of “not supporting the troops.”

If it’s not accusations of “not supporting the troops”, it’s accusations of “helping the terrorists.”

If it’s not accusations of “helping the terrorists”, it’s accusations of wanting to “cut and run.”

If it’s not accusations of wanting to “cut and run”, it’s accusations of being a “Saddam Hussein apologist.”

If it’s not accusations of being a “Saddam Hussein apologist”, it’s accusations of being “leftists” or “socialists.”

This is the kind of garbage that some of the most outspoken supporters of the war have been leveling at the rest of us. There’s nothing unpatriotic or un-American or “anti-US” about speaking out against a government or a foreign policy or a war that is perceived as being unjust.

This specific brand of ad hominem rhetoric has been going on now for more than four years. This is what many vocal members of the Right/Republican Party did during the run up to the war. Instead of engaging in rational debate, some chose then to level ad hominem attacks and essentially question the patriotism of those they didn’t agree with.

And they continue to do so today.

Many who supported the Iraq War–in the administration, in congress, in newspapers, in the news networks, in talk radio, and in the blogosphere were wrong about some of their pre-war assertions. Wrong as in “we’ll be granted as liberators” wrong. Wrong as in “yellowcake from Niger” wrong. Wrong as in “mobile bioweapons labs” wrong. Wrong as in “there can be no doubt that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” wrong. Wrong as in denouncing anyone who even suggested that Saddam Hussein might no longer have weapons of mass destruction.

I haven’t heard many apologies from those who excoriated the anti-war side, many of whom turned out to somewhat more accurate in their predictions than those made by the Bush Administration and their defenders.

No, instead, the “anti-US”, “Blame America crowd”, “not supporting the troops” memes continue.

There’s no question that I have been very outspoken in my opposition to the war. I readily concede that I have been quite critical of both the Bush Administration and its staunchest defenders.

But I have never questioned the patriotism or the love for their country of anyone who has supported Bush, our foreign policy, or the Iraq War. Not once have I done so, even when my own patriotism or love for my country has been questioned.

And while I certainly cannot speak for every far-left liberal or partisan Democrat or government-hating libertarian, I don’t believe that anyone here at TMV has ever criticized the patriotism or love for their country of anyone here who supports Bush or our foreign policy or the Iraq War.

And if I’m wrong and any of the anti-war members of TMV has in fact questioned the patriotism or love for their country of those who do support Bush or the war, then let me be candid and criticize both pro-war and anti-war TMV members who have sunken to such disgusting rhetoric.

Frankly, if those of you who support Bush and his foreign policy truly disagree with my views or perhaps my failure to perceive the situation accurately, then frankly, I’d rather you call me or naive or irrational or stupid than to pretend that you know what’s in my heart.

Harry Browne, who ran for president in 1996 and 2000, had a saying (he had many sayings actually):

“I love my country. But I do not love my government.”

That’s kind of how I feel. America is more–MUCH MORE–than the politicians who govern it. It is the people, the culture, and the many places that America what it is.

So please, if I or anyone else here at TMV criticizes the government or its policies, please don’t call me or them “anti-US” or question our patriotism or love for our country. Perhaps it’s our biases that keep us from fully seeing your side of the argument, but at the same time, perhaps you should question your own biases before questioning what’s in our hearts.

We can argue on legal grounds because both the US and Iran are signatories to the NPT. The NPT allows the US to have nuclear weapons – it does not allow Iran to have them.

And Iran does not have them. They are enriching uranium, which is allowed under the NPT.

Where was the word treason used, except by you? Accusing someone of having an anti-US pathology is a far cry from accusing them of treason.

Why does the left equate a dislike of anti-US bias with accusations of treason? IMHO, likely because of their tendency to assume bad intent on anyone who doesn’t share their viewpoints, and their accusations of evil intent on those who do.

I don’t think any country should have nuclear weapons, including our own. The world would be a much safer place without it. But as long as we continue to make develop new nuclear weapons, I don’t see how we can argue that Iran can’t have them from a legal or moral perspective.

We can argue on legal grounds because both the US and Iran are signatories to the NPT. The NPT allows the US to have nuclear weapons – it does not allow Iran to have them.

Rudi said:
blockquote>
For all those so enamored with a war with Iran, I suggest you run over to your local recruiting station and sign up.

To late for that. I’ve served for sixteen years and spent a good part of the 1990′s a few miles of the Iranian coast. But that doesn’t matter. People don’t serve in the US Armed Forces because they want to go to war in Iran or any other country.

There’s a big difference between intelligent criticism and dissent and what we see too often on the Left (moral equivalance and relativism, actually claiming the USA and its records are worse than its enemies and adversaries throughout the years). If you cannot fail to make the easy distinction, that’s not something I or others should be ashamed of…

Are you really that blind, or consumed by anti-US pathology (disease)?

You’re sure fond of the “anti-US” meme. Glad to note that dissent is the better part of treason.

Are you really that blind, or consumed by anti-US pathology (disease)?

They oppressed no one, had no bigotry, racism or sexism, only went to war for the noblest of causes, committed no atrocities in peace or war, their legal system was just and fair to all citizens, and prosperity reigned.

You also seem to believe that only those who are perfect have any moral superiority, and that any bad acts both negate all positives, and forgive any bad acts by ones opponents.

Here is a real reality for you – the winners write history, and get to say what was or wasn’t moral and just. It may not be fair, but it is the truth.

“History is written by the victors”, Winston Churchill

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.

Ain’t gonna happen folks.

I am as anxious as anyone to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capability. I just don’t believe that this administration will accomplish that objective – indeed, I believe that experience tells us that the Bushies will find novel ways to make the situation worse.

We are in a pickle and no doubt about it. However, you don’t give a child an Uzi and ask him to patrol the neighborhood – just as you don’t give this administration any bombs and ask them to patrol the world.

So, Chris, I assume you support, at at least have no problem, with ANY other county getting nuclear weapons. In fact, according to your logic, the more the merrier, and ALL countries should strive to have nuclear weapons, to make the world a safer place.

I don’t think any country should have nuclear weapons, including our own. The world would be a much safer place without it. But as long as we continue to make develop new nuclear weapons, I don’t see how we can argue that Iran can’t have them from a legal or moral perspective.

To Steve:

why should iran’s leaders think that? What have we done to ever make them think we would respond militarily to anything they did? Why do you presume that we’d be able to tell that it Iran was responsible, rather than some nut with a rogue Russian nuke?

We installed a brutal dictator in Iran and then helped equip the Iraqis to fight a war with Iran that killed 1 million of their people. And more recently Bush labelled them part of the “Axis of Evil” and talks about how a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable.”

To Entropy:

Not only that, the Arab nations in the region, notably Saudi Arabia and Egypt, would be compelled to develop their own nuclear weapons in response. In fact, both those countries in the last year have publicly announced that they desire an advanced “civilian� nuclear technology program.

I agree, and that’s why the invasion of Iraq was such a bad idea. It set off a chain reaction that has pretty much forced the hands of those in power in the Middle East. They got to see during the Saddam execution video what happens when America decides you’re no longer useful. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt want nukes because it would be a deterrent.

April 10th, 2007 at 12:37 pm

to know there are indefatiguable conservative Republicans out there who can look upon the smoking ruin that is the Bush Administration’s foreign policy – ………and still say, “The Democrats would be even worse!!â€?

point of note–every poll at RealClearPolitics suggest he is hardly alone.

And now, with Rudi having so effectively shamed me and put me into my place as someone not worthy of having an opinion, I must refrain from offering up any more comments. oh well, tis for the good, my fingers were getting tired.

just as soon as I point out to Rudi that we already have enough soldiers to do what is needed to Iran, that our failure to take action against Iran is not because we don’t have enough volunteers, but because those commanding those volunteers don’t have the spine to do what is necessary.

thus, if they have nukes, our two choices are to let them have what they want or be prepared for them to use their nukes on us. So if we don’t want them to do what they want to do, aren’t we better off confronting them before they have nukes than afterwards?