Pretty sure it's been awhile.

Hezbollah is a wholly-owned Iranian funded subsidiary.

Except when they kill people it's 'Freedom Fighting', so it's ok.

The US has waged proxy wars for decades - and launched direct military attacks on other nations, often without provocation.

Iran has been fighting a proxy war against Israel for thirty years now.

You still can't provide an example of Iran using its military to attack or invade another nation in recent history.

bomb Iran's nuclear facility's a little while ago?

And not be a hypocrite

As far as I'm concerned , no American can criticize Iran on the nuclear ambitions

Nuclear proliferation is bad for everyone. I don't see how you could objectively state that the world would be a better place with a nuclear armed Iran. The fact that I'm an American and the US has nuclear weapons is irrelevant. You're essentially saying "nobody who is a heroin addict has any right to suggest that other people don't take heroin".

It's a home-grown movement, and the only significant force able to resist Israeli imperial thugs. I'm sure they'e willing to take funds from anyone, but their alliances are within Lebanon, and include a significant Christian faction. They even have Sunday Mass on their cable TV station.

You should think twice before assuming that supporters of apartheid in the Middle East care about the rights of Arab Christians; they do not.

The evangelicals are racist towards Arab Christians and want them driven out of the Middle East;

The Likudniks hate Arab Christians as much as they hate Arab Muslims.

They are a movement and a political party, and they make every alliance that they can. Too fundy? Blame Israel for that. If Israel had not invaded Lebanon, they would not exist.

but Hizbollah has... and no, that is not propaganda.

Iran (and a few others) have been waging proxy wars for a while... the ME is in the midst of a very nice cold war. Look on the bright side, it might go hot soon.

....whereas the Islamist one, is anything BUT legitimate.

Obviously the system is f'ed up but it is more democratic than most of our allies in the Middle East, which makes it "ripe for attack because it is an open society" according to one Mossad expert interviewed on NPR the other day.

Last time there was a major election in Iran, a lot of protesters were gunned down by soldiers and police for protesting a blatantly rigged election against reformist candidates. On paper, it may be a republic, but in practice, it's just an oligarchy that holds sham elections to appear democratic.

Does the US arsenal of nuclear weapons give it free reign to threaten its neighbors?

In bizarro world, that is.

I don't like that small-town shops you could walk to are being forced out of business by predatory companies like WalMart. That just means I have to use a car when I could have simply walked. Cars are a fact of life now and so are nukes. I'm sure Iran feels threatened on various fronts and merely implying that they have the capability is probably an adequate deterrent. I'm more worried about N. Korea than Iran. At least Iran knows what they're dealing with.

America, Israel and NATO have been engaged in war after war for decades now, however, no country with nuclear capability was attacked during this time span. A glaring example of this is North Korea which is believed to have several nuclear weapons. They are part of the "axis of evil", yet they were left alone.

The US has Iran completely surrounded with bases from Afghanistan to Turkey, Bahrain and the Gulf. Iran feels threatened for good reason. Iran does not have he US surrounded with bases. Also, Iran is a relatively peaceful nation compared to the US as they have not been engaged in war after war for decades. Remember, it was Iraq that attacked them in the 1980's.

Iran feels the need to defend itself because of America's belligerent tendencies.

It expands options. As a deterrent it's useful, but it's also useful as a means of leverage against non-nuclear powers. The logic isn't hard to understand.

What's harder to understand for me is seeing this type of thing cheered on the left. Traditionally the left has been against nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons in general. One would think a lot of people would be particularly averse to a theocratic regime getting one. But there you have it, I guess. Things change.

...on other people.

Your argument is that they are entitled to the bomb because they have never used it?

LOL.

Am I entitled to my own attack helicopter because I've never used one on anybody?

The historical record is what gives reason for Iran wanting to obtain nuclear capability...not your halfwit logic.

You justified your position by saying they 'hadn't used nukes'

Well of course, since they don't have them. I don't see how your argument makes sense.

And 'halfwit logic' is a bullshit insult. Unfortunately it's apparently jury-approved.

If it's a similar want as that of other nations, isn't that justification for it just as with other nations, such as the US and Israel? If not, why not? (Other than the obvious reality of "we don't want them to be capable of defending themselves and "our" oil which happens to reside under their land?)

What I find particularly striking is how you distance yourself from the "left"...

"What's harder to understand for me is seeing this type of thing cheered on the left."

... Many on this board consider... this board to be "the left"... are you setting yourself up as a critic of and judge of "the left" and simultaneously "this board"... with these comments? Or are you trying to marginalize a segment of the commenters on this board by employing "the left" as not only a label but a de facto epithet?

And... when I see you posting comments which seem to be using "the left" as a de facto epithet, I can't help but wonder anew at your choice of screen name...

You're obsessed with me and the Nazis. I get it. The giveaway is the quote box. No need to keep explaining yourself.

Were I a christian, this is where I would say I'm praying for you.

... nor does it explain the apparent disdain in the tone of your post toward the "left".

Would you care to elaborate on the mistaken notions of the "left" when considering the imperialist behavior of the US towards Iran?

It is rather funny that the US can have a conservative, fundamentalist government (Republicans) and be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons with no outcry from the "not-left", but if the same consideration (no outcry) is extended to another conservative, fundamentalist government (who happens to have "our oil" under its land) then it's some sort of "left" delusion underpinning wacky thoughts... rather than simply being an expression of not-imperialism.

The box-quote, on the other hand, does go a long way to explaining your tone— coincidentally, I'm sure.

You have no credibility with me whatsoever. You have burned your bridges with your constant personal attacks and bullshit accusations. Although I've pretty thoroughly debunked them on other threads, you keep posting them over and over anyway because it's apparently very important that your message get out.

I'm not explaining shit to you and I'm definitely not going to act as if you're some sort of judge in an ideological test. If you want to know more about what I think on the subject of Iran and the left, wait until another thread on it comes up and I'm conversing with somebody whose concern is the issue and not me personally . . . which would be pretty much everybody else on this board. Seeing as Iran is a hot topic and you apparently like following me around here, I'm sure that won't be a problem

The mullahs, on the other hand, have been itching for a war to destroy Israel pretty much since they first gained power.
(Also, about the Iran-Iraq War: Saddam, as much of a belligerent tyrant as he was, did, to his credit, offer a cease-fire to the Iranians in June 1982. The mullahs rejected this offer, however, and many believe this was the primary reason for the war's 6-year continuence.)

Arguing that being pro nuclear proliferation isn't progressive is 'right wing and reactionary?'

If you say so.

or just the one you like playing on DU for argument's sake? Why do you even bother? Do you think people are that dumb... really?

Nerf or Super Soaker?

try to keep it real

Do you feel Cherry Garcia Proud??

Sangria Proud at the very least?

It says a lot.

That's assuming you're not being sarcastic. Sometimes it's hard to tell on here

It's very succinct, very straight to the point.

Progressives against non-poliferation.

PAN-liberals!

PAN. That's pretty good. I think PANOPLY (Progressives Against Non-Proliferation, Yo) works too

What's even odder is that we're talking about a conservative theocracy here. At least during the Cold War one could tap into broader progressive themes like socialism and colonial liberation (if not usually democracy) when making the case for some countries the US exerted pressure on. But Iran can't claim anything remotely like that. It's a conservative Islamic state whose government gets little support from its own secular left.

Thankfully I think the people arguing what the OP is arguing are few in number. Most people still probably oppose both war and a nuclear armed Iran.

Iran is a conservative Islamic Theocracy because the US, in 1953, overthrew a progressive nationalistic government in that country, led by Prime Minister Mossadegh, and installed a dictator and a secret police force, SAVAK, to arrest, torture, and kill anyone who might share the progressive nationalistic ideals of the Mossadegh government.

Kill the progressives, leave the religious fundamentalists in place, and oppress the population in general... and what do you get?

Your rhetorical intuition in trying to alienate a detestable government from the left here in the US which might be inclined to side with a nation being targeted by US imperialist intentions/power... does do a competent job of trying to villify a horrific government... but unfortunately the unsavory aims of US aims of re-asserting control of Iranian oil, which was lost in the Nationalist Revolution which the religious powers took control of in 1979, is altogether too obvious to make anyone who has the slightest grasp of international affairs and history not feel uncomfortable in the vicinity of.

Why is Iran governed by conservative religious fundamentalists? Because the US made it possible by poor imperialist management...

The Theocracy is just what's left of the Nationalism that the US tried to crush in '53.

The shrub sure fucked up THAT one. We've lived with Russia/USSR having nukes for almost as long as we've had them ourselves. Somebody's going to make a mistake one day (think "Dr. Strangelove&quot and it could be any of the nuclear powers. I'm more worried about an accidental launch than someone "pushing the button" - even when Republicans are in control.

That's a stretch of an assumption, imo. I doubt if either country sees that as a realistic possibility. In fact, I suspect both would agree and see that as a big mistake for both parties and the region as a whole.

There may be theoretical planning scenarios as a part of standard procedure. Theoretical being the key word. Most countries probably do that routinely.

(ed for clarity)

Bush allowed North Korea to get them.

I hope another country does not go nuclear under President Obama, or ever.

I have an idea. Stop threatening them.

I wouldn't put it past them (to develop one OR not develop one.)

Which is how I feel about it, actually.

But either way, they're stupid.

Last edited Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

It's highly unusual to see a post on Democratic Underground advocating proliferation of nuclear weapons.

It's unfortunate that you are unable to engage in this discussion without stooping to personal attacks.

Why don't you ask the Chinese or Koreans how innocent the Japanese were?

The Chinese suffered between 20-35 million casualties during the Japanese invasion of China (1937-1945). That is 200,000 to 300,000 killed or wounded EVERY MONTH the war continued.

The Japanese forced Korean women into sexual slavery as “comfort women” in field brothels where the women were forced to sexually service, as many as 70 Japanese soldiers a day. In other words these women were raped 70 times a day for yeasr on end.

Everywhere the Japanese conquered, they acted like barbarians toward Allied POWS and civilians. The Japanese beat, starved, tortured and executed men and women. They used living human beings as living test subjects in their infamous biological warfare Unit 731.

If the bomb has been available 6-12 months sooner, or the war lasted 6-12 months longer, then Berlin would have been the first target. Those who now condemn the use of the bombs on Japan would not have said a thing about their use on Germany. Their attitude would have been that the dirty Fascists got what they deserved.

What happened was their consequences of what THEIR government did.

Japan needed natural resources, they could have chosen to trade for them. They chose to take them by force.

Tom Clancy had a character state in one of his novels "War is just armed robbery on an industrial scale."

The Japanese were not noble, nor were they victims of American, British or any foreign aggression. The Japanese were the warmongers during this period in history. They were armed robbers and they paid the cost for their folly. Considering how many people they murdered during their invasion and occupation of China, Korea and other areas in S.E. Asia, I think they got off a great deal easier than they could have.

A one point there discussion of using poison gas against the Japanese during Operation Downfall (the land invasion of Japan). We had stockpiled several thousand TONS of poison gas by the end of the war.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/pacific-online-forum/

Because our government started the war. Or, because we slaughtered the Indians for profit. Or, because we stole Texas and California from Mexico.

"They do it, so we do it." Is a piss poor excuse for murdering people.

Cause you tore it the fuck off.

I would add that it was,mostly, gently torn the fuck off... because there were plenty of adjectives that could have been attached to the off-fucking-tearing process.... which might've made it less pleasant for both participants and spectators alike...

The process of cranial off-ripping was done with a certain level of delicacy, dare I even say "finesse"?

War is a nasty business.

After all, ask the Palestinians or the Iraqis how innocent the Americans were. Or hell, why not ask the Chileans who had their own 9/11 or the Vietnamese, Salvadorian, or Nicaraguans our government slaughtered how innocent we were?

Luckily, most of the world, myself included, disagrees with you and does not believe that attacks on civilians are justified, not matter what crimes their government commits. That's why we view 9/11 as a despicable act of terror, as well as the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Though I guess it's ok to kill civilians when the targets aren't us?

Have people forgotten that WE are the only country in the world that actually USED nuclear weapons? My goodness. I feel like it's the Twilight Zone.

Because Israel WILL nuke them into the stone age the second they find out for sure. Most likely before. It's the dumbest thing Iran can do.

.....before they could try such a move, and undoubtedly, you'd be right about Israel, I'm afraid, as they'd probably flip the minute they even thought that an Iranian bomb or two was headed their way.

When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first send the Marines!

We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,

What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till someone we like can be elected.

Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!

Tom Lehrer: a national treasure

Wait...

.....people seem to forget that if Iran gets nukes then Egypt and Saudi Arabia and then the Gulf States will all go nuclear also...not a good thing.

... since the Neocons announced their plans to force change in the Middleast. Fear of an imminent attack has always been a motivator to arm oneself. Just look at the knee jerk reaction of the US right wing since Obama was elected.(although there was no attack, just the paranoia of one)

and of course, Iran does see itself surrounded by US military bases and Israel, which has never been completely forthright about its own nuclear program (they are estimated to have several hundred warheads).

However all that said, the world has two very unstable nuclear powers as it is - Pakistan and North Korea. Do we really need more? As it is, we know those two countries have proliferated nuclear material, intelligence, and weapons. As we've seen, Iran has been hit with severe sanctions as it is - sanctions which are having an effect on their economy.

Say they were successful in developing nukes, we can only imagine the absolute isolation and economic desperation they will be in - likely leading them to sell and proliferate the one thing they would have.

A world full of unstable, theocratic regimes having nukes just doesn't seem like a good idea. The sanctions may yet backfire (in that the high gas prices will cripple already struggling economies in the US and Western Europe), but it's hard to argue that this isn't a fairly broad coalition that the US has put in place to implement these. I think it's pretty clear that most countries the world over just doesn't want to see Iran become a nuclear power.

What they see is reality.

As in: notices that it is surrounded.
Not: "sees itself as surrounded'; which is what you seem to be responding to.

They both got suckered to play ball, and they're both dead.

You have a point. I don't think other entities who are at odds with us will be so trusting.

what they CAN do and WHO is a threat.

America. They dropped two nuclear weapons on civilians --men, women and children.

The nerve of them to tell other countries that they can't be trusted is.... ultimate irony.

But it's also true that the US killed way more people in Germany and Japan with conventional bombs during that war (that probably includes Britain in the German case as well). Plus, the yields of today's nuclear weapons dwarf those used in 1945. I'm not sure that argument holds much water in this discussion.

It really is a different game nowadays. What that says about whether or not Iran should have nuclear weapons I don't know. But the times have certainly changed.

I guess it may take mushroom clouds rising over Tel Aviv and Haifa for some to finally get the point. And then it'll be too damned late.

or Tel Aviv... please explain to me the strategic or tactical reasons to do so.

Please refrain from using arguments such as "they're crazy" "they're extremists" or any othe such non-sensical flim-flammery in said explanation of why Iran would, given the realities of US and Israeli nuclear and conventional stockpiles, decide to... initiate a first strike against Haifa or Tel Aviv (or even Jerusalem)?

I can't see any strategic or tactical advantage to come from it.

On the other hand, should the US or Israel decide that they're gonna re-take Iranian oil fields (a very real and tangible goal of a number of oil corporations, which are probably paying some talented lobbyists to suck some metaphorical government cocks to get their way) ... Iran's possession of nukes that could be used in a number of defensive military scenarios... makes a hell of a lot more tactical and even strategic sense.

In other words, marginalized countries, like Iran, have learned the hard-way that nukes are the only real way to get the US to back the fuck off from imperialist designs on... killing leaders and their offspring.

So... once again.. try to explain why we should worry about mushroom clouds over Haifa? (without them resulting from an invasion of Tehran...)

The MSM and the Pentagon been beating the war drums for years but nothing ever happened. Frankly, these days I'm convinced that the Iranians will be the ones to start a war, unless some of the Israeli military go crazy and decide to invade first(which could happen, unfortunately. Israel does have its share of nuts).

Marginalized? I call B.S. on that. I hate to sound harsh, but don't you remember Iran-Contra, or at least know about it? That is one of the main reasons I'm saying what I'm saying.

and Pakistan are two poor countries that successfully developed nuclear weapons. Neither has been invaded after the acquisition of these weapons so the political elite is undoubted quite happy about having atomic bombs. It is less apparent what the benefit to the real people of those countries has been.

Remember Iran-Contra?

Like in the ONLY thing that may prevent military invasion. Nothing else will stop American empire,
if its elites could make few billion dollars at the expense of few thousands lives of the underclass.
Nuclear capability is the only way to maintain sovereignty and independence, and it is simply
irresponsible on the part of any national leadership proclaiming such a goal not to seek nuclear
deterrent.

Since Iran would not have the ability to deliver those weapons to the US, there is no deterrent there at all. However, as India and Pakistan have found out, it is a big pain in the ass when you have a nuclear armed enemy very close to you. All of a sudden, not only do you have to behave, you have to get anyone associated with you, i.e. Hezbollah, to behave else they trigger a conflict that could easily escalate to a nuclear exchange. Any plane with an odd flight path or test missile that looks wobbly could trigger a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel as each country has virtually no time to try to figure out if the plane or missile has a nuclear payload. That is what you are thinking would be a good idea for Iran?

There are a lot of unintended consequences that come as a result of going nuclear, particularly in that region.

If you want further evidence, the US has still struck at drone targets within Pakistan. There is nothing that being nuclear has helped with as far as that is concerned. If the US wanted to invade North Korea, or a nuclear armed Iran should that come to pass, the first order of business would be to send special forces to take over the nuclear sites and command and control of those sites. You can do that when a country has a really small arsenal of nuclear weapons.

or not. But the opposite is true - they are obsessed with nuclear Iran. That tells one
all there is to know about deterring powers of nukes. Iran does not need to deliver
those nukes to US (though even that task is far from impossible), it only needs to
deliver them to Israel - a capability it already has. Sending a small commando unit
to secure nukes is a stuff of pure fiction and Hollywood movies. In reality, nuclear
weapons is an absolute deterrence which would give any country a 100% insurance
against foreign invasion. That's why no nuclear state has ever been invaded by a
foreign power.

The main reasons the US doesnt want Iran to have a nuclear weapon are the threat that they would turn that weapon and/or technology over to a terrorist group or they would use it to attack Israel or use threats to close the flow of oil.

If Iran had 10 or fewer nuclear weapons, that would not protect them from invasion from a country like the US or China or Russia. All three of those countries have the ability to overwhelm Iran's defenses in a surprise attack and take over command and control of a small nuclear force before Iran could use them.

(i) the supposed threat of terrorists getting hold of nuclear weapons (or even funnier - the technology
to produce them) and (ii) the alleged ability of some countries to take over the whole nuclear arsenal
of another country is a sheer Hollywood fantasy. You watched too many movies, mate.

The Bush team was saber rattling against NK as one of the Axis of Evil, but then NK said "We have nukes," and the Bush team placed all of their focus on Iraq.

At no time were there large transfers of troops to South Korea, at no time were any other plans ever made to do so.

by the time the NK exploded that we were already heavily involved in Iraq. THe only reason we did not respond is that for some silly reason, short of a draft, we had zero troops in any form of strategic reserve to answer that threat.

We might have wanted to... (and I think they did), but they had no strategic ability to do this.

If anything were to happen to NK's nuclear-protected dictators who knows what bad things might happen to the prosperous and free people of North Korea.

Their second strike capability is way more important as a deterrent than their nuclear capability.

The Iranian gov't is NOT developing nukes to 'defend' their country, but rather as an offensive against any neighboring states whom they might see as a potential threat(particularly Israel). I hate to be harsh, but the U.S. and Israel aren't the only governments with major warhawk issues.

A handful of nukes in no way shape or form is an offensive threat, given that Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers with huge arsenals--Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan and India. What that handful of nukes would do is to deter a first strike attack on Iran, since they could cause some pain in retaliation. And that is the threat. The bully of the world takes offense if other countries attempt to defend themselves.

And the Iranian government has stated a desire to destroy the Jewish state and its people(which could end up killing many thousands of innocent Palestinians as well).

Marginal nuclear capacity simply can't give Iran the power to destroy Israel, which is a major nuclear power and a minor imperial bully itself.

....but the Iranian mullah government is no better. If given the chance, they definitely would at least try to nuke a couple of Israeli cities to make their sick wet dreams of a second Holocaust to come true, just as some on the Israeli fringe right might want their country to launch a first strike so they can cheer the killing of innocent Iranians.

Frankly, I'd rather that neither country had nukes, if you want my opinion.

A first strike attempt would get Iran obliterated, and they know it. But a modestly nuclear capable Iran would be much less likely to suffer a first strike from Israel.

all countries need to scale back their nukes

Obama has threatened Iran as vociferously as any others... just saying, on this point he's as ass-hat crazy in speeches as any other ass-hat politicians in this country (who all apparently have to serve the oil industrialists' wet-dreams as steadfastly as their wishes)

Obama is at least not motivated by a need for macho strutting.

...but to say that the fundamentalist government in engaging in self-defense, would be like saying that Iran-Contra and the overthrow of Mossadegh were justified(which, of course, they weren't).

Who have they attacked in the last 30+ years. No one, that's who. People who don't invade other countries by definition have militaries that are engaged only in self-defense.

They would have preemptively invaded Iraq at some point in the '80s had Saddam not struck first instead.
These criminals are waiting for a chance to strike out. Let us hope they are overthrown, preferably peacefully, before they can achieve their goal......

The US is the primary criminal country in the area of military bullying of other countries, with Israel playing a minor role.

Iran is a country that hasn't invaded anyone since 1829, when they were badly beaten. They are the only truly independent country in the area, and this provokes the wrath of imperial bullies.

...and so is the part about our government's activities. However, though, I do believe the fundies would love to break that mold, whereas someone like Mossadegh never would have contemplated it. We can thank(as in, blame) the CIA for all this, really.

And yes, we can blame the CIA. Also, non-fundies have a better chance of voting out the fundies if we just back the hell OFF. Being threatened ALWAYS empowers the reactionary right. Note Shrubbie's popularity after 9/11-why would you think Iranians would be different?

If you want my opinion on any involvement by the U.S., at this point, I'd rather we stay put.
And frankly, I think backing off might actually really increase the chance of the overthrow of these reactionary monsters, and frankly, this is my most favored approach; let the ordinary Iranian people know that America really doesn't hate them, and would like to see their lot in life approve. Although keeping the more extreme Israeli warhawks from going full-on psycho might be a challenge for Washington or Tel Aviv, it would be more than worth it. Not only would America's standing in the world improve, and perhaps Israel's too, but the Iranian people will wake up that much faster to reality, and hopefully be able to install a truly democratic government without the meddling from the extreme-right warhawks amongst our military, and others'.

--it seems that we have gotten to the same conclusion.

as long as they're told if they ever use it Iran becomes a glass parking lot.

to foreign powers with hostile covetous designs.

If we are trying interested in preventing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, let's start there?

but just in case...

...we'd better get a bomb.

But at least they haven't been crazy enough to use them in the past few wars they've been involved in........yet.

They've seen the polar opposite circumstance of North Korea and Libya.