[Cyberyeti]

kenberg, on 2012-April-07, 22:13, said:

Does the government in the UK defend this course of action? If so, what is their defense? You say that the US can request extradition. I can request a million dollars but I doubt that you would give it to me. If the case is really as outrageous as you make it out to be then it seems that you have a quarrel to make with your own government.

I truly don't wish to judge the case. Lawyers, judges and juries will do that. But if the UK government has reviewed the case and has come to the conclusion that there is no case, why would they go along with this?

We actually do not need more prisoners over here. It seems implausible that the FBI, or whoever, decided to invest resources in tricking a law abiding Brit so that they could pull him over here, give him room and board in our crowded prison system and create international strife. What would be the pay-off? The prosecution has to prove its case, of course I am not sating otherwise. But to believe the stated scenario, I have to believe that the US invented a pointless trap, an experienced businessman behaved very carelessly, and the British government went along with the gag. That's a lot of believing.

The story, as stated, is a presentation as someone wishes us to see it. There is a Minnesota saying "Wuz you there, Charlie?". I wuzn't, and I have trouble taking it as the straight stuff.

No, Blair signed a treaty (probably while his head was up Bush's backside) that allowed the US to extradite from Britain anybody they wanted without presenting any evidence, and this treaty is watertight. The British courts cannot intervene however ridiculous the case is (we have similar problems with the within EU arrest warrants). Look at the Gary McKinnon case, he embarrassed the Pentagon due to their lax security procedures, not sure that justifies allegedly spending a load of completely unnecessary money (I've heard many experts in the field say that this spend was unnecessary) overreacting, then using this bogus cost to extradite a mentally ill man.

Edit: I believe the purpose of this was to allow the US to use wiretap evidence in terrorism cases which is inadmissible here, and we were assured the Americans would only use this treaty to fight terrorism.

Exporting stuff from US to Holland shouldn't be a problem, surely it's the Dutch authorities job to prevent the stuff being exported to Iran, and the exporter that does that that needs to answer questions.

[mgoetze]

kenberg, on 2012-April-07, 07:09, said:

Sure. Mostly I would hate to see that poll taken seriously. If ever we had a poll in the US that showed that my fellow citizens ranked North Korea and Europe side by side in anything, I would be embarrassed for my country, hope no one ever brought it up, and disavow it if they did.

I'm sure the USA has a lot of wonderful citizens. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be running the country, and this poll is about foreign policy, not whether a country has wonderful citizens.

In recent decades, the US administration has wreaked havoc and destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Mexico, Chile, and so on and so forth. The North Korean administration has wreaked havoc and destruction in, well, North Korea. Do they deserve to be ranked side by side? Definitely not.

By the way, I'm sure North Korea also has some wonderful citizens. It strikes me that they are in a much worse position to do anything about their administration's foreign policy than their American counterparts.

[Gerben42]

luke warm, on 2012-April-07, 06:47, said:

do you not see any difference whatsoever between an attack, and the motive for such an attack, on israel as opposed to, say, iran?

Israel has no right to attack Iran, and Iran has no right to attack Israel. End of story.

The United Nations were founded to avoid such conflicts. It is not an ideal instrument, as can be seen in Syria at the moment, but it is the only acceptable instrument.

[blackshoe]

Gerben42, on 2012-April-09, 04:52, said:

Israel has no right to attack Iran, and Iran has no right to attack Israel. End of story.

The United Nations were founded to avoid such conflicts. It is not an ideal instrument, as can be seen in Syria at the moment, but it is the only acceptable instrument.

So a nation which has solid evidence that another nation is about to attack them can do nothing until actually attacked? Interesting viewpoint.

If two nations can resolve their dispute(s) without war, and without the intervention of the UN, this is "unacceptable"? I don't think so. (I do recognize this is unlikely in the current situation between Israel and Iran, but we're talking about principles here).

[kenberg]

Tp add a little to Blackie's comment:

Roughly speaking, Iran
a. Is pursuing nuclear material capability
b. Has repeatedly called for teh destruction of Israel

Now I understand that politicians everywhere say all sorts of stupid things so one should not take all their utterances as gospel.But at what point is a nation allowed to act in self-defense based on clear indications of future intent?That is, where a nation announces its intent and carries out preparations to act on announced intentions. Does a country always have to allow the other side the first blow? We managed to survive the balance of terror with the Soviet Union. I wouldn't trust that things will always work out that way.

I am not endorsing an Israeli military strike, with or without US support. I would say though that we must do absolutely everything possible to avert a situation where there seems to be no other option. It is just not realistic to think that Israel will agree to wait until Tel Aviv is nuked before they attack. These thing have a life of their own and often cannot be derailed. That's why we have wars.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2012-April-09, 06:32, said:

Roughly speaking, Iran

a. Is pursuing nuclear material capability
b. Has repeatedly called for teh destruction of Israel

There is a lot of debate about your second point

http://en.wikipedia....ejad_and_Israel

[mgoetze]

kenberg, on 2012-April-09, 06:32, said:

Roughly speaking, Iran
a. Is pursuing nuclear material capability

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Officially Iran wants to build nuclear power plants. Are you or are you not accusing them of secretly working on nuclear weapons?

[Cyberyeti]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-09, 07:23, said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Officially Iran wants to build nuclear power plants. Are you or are you not accusing them of secretly working on nuclear weapons?

Well they seem to want uranium enriched to a level that is not needed for civilian purposes, so I think most people assume they're developing a weapons program.

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-09, 08:22, said:

Well they seem to want uranium enriched to a level that is not needed for civilian purposes, so I think most people assume they're developing a weapons program.

Most of the analysts that I've heard are suggesting that Iran is proceeding towards a point where they could produce a nuclear weapon relatively quickly (say, within a year).

It's unclear whether they plan to move all the way towards building / testing such a weapon.

It's kinda hard to blame them...

[ArtK78]

hrothgar, on 2012-April-09, 07:21, said:

kenberg, on 2012-April-09, 06:32, said:

Roughly speaking, Iran
a. Is pursuing nuclear material capability
b. Has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel

There is a lot of debate about your second point

http://en.wikipedia....ejad_and_Israel

Really? Is the debate a question of now or next week? Otherwise, I don't see what the debate is.

[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on 2012-April-09, 09:07, said:

Really? Is the debate a question of now or next week? Otherwise, I don't see what the debate is.

The debate is whether

1. The commonly quoted translation bears any relationship to the original Farsi
2. The expression in question referred to the current inhabitants of the land or the Israeli government
3. Whether the statement is a call-to-action or a (belated) wish

Simply put there is an enormous difference between

1. Let's go nuke Tel Aviv!

and

2. Live would be a lot nicer if the Netanhayu government went away...

FWIW, I consider it a rather extreme position to suggest that the Iranian statements really meant item 2. At the same time, I think that its ridiculous that there meant item 1.

[mike777]

IN any event I think it is fair to say Iran bombs Israel, they bomb bomb bomb Israel and have for years.


They provide the bombs and the training and tell people to bomb Israel and they do.

Of course the USA has been bombing Pakistan for years with flying robots.


Whether Israel or the USA want to wait until the last month of construction of a working abomb to do something or not is another matter. Clearly Iran has the sovereign right to build one, I dont think that is the issue. I think we all agree that talking is better than war up to a point. I think many but not all agree there are things worse than war. Which is why I suppose when war is considered the lesser evil it is chosen.

However I grant there are many posters and others who believe there can never be anything worse than war.

[kenberg]

Stepping back from specifically Iran, as I recall the usual claim of a country that seeks enriched uranium is that they wish to build power plants. Perhaps they do, but one does not have to be a super skeptic to not take this at unquestioned face value.


I was thinking a bit about this while driving in. European nations could perhaps play a very productive role here. We are seen, and I admit with considerable reason, as being "on Israel's side" when push comes to shove. Europe, much less so. This could be useful. Perhaps Iran would listen to some advice, not from us. It would help a lot if Iran made it clear that it hopes to work productively for peaceful relationships with all mid-east states. Talk is cheap, I know, but still what one says matters. A clear statement of intent, clear enough that subtle issues of translation don't matter, would be nice. So would an acknowledgement that the Holocaust is historical fact. Denying the Holocaust is not just a matter of historical idiocy, it's a not very subtle statement about the legitimacy of a Jewish state that came into existence at least partly as a result of the horrors of that time.

No one, absolutely no one, should entertain the idea that a war with Iran would go well. It will be a total disaster for the area and for the world. It would be very good if we can find a way to avoid it.

[mike777]

..."No one, absolutely no one, should entertain the idea that a war with Iran would go well. It will be a total disaster for the area and for the world. It would be very good if we can find a way to avoid it. "




I think at this point the issue may be can we avoid a war with Iran by letting them build whatever they want, whenever. Many believe that letting Iran have a nuke is not really that big a deal compared to war and the horrible effects it will have.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2012-April-09, 10:30, said:

I think at this point the issue may be can we avoid a war with Iran by letting them build whatever they want, whenever. Many believe that letting Iran have a nuke is not really that big a deal compared to war and the horrible effects it will have.

I fall in that category...

[mike777]

In some ways this Israel/Iran Nuke thing feels like Cuba and the USA. I Mean is there any reason not to let Cuba have nukes.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2012-April-09, 10:41, said:

In some ways this Israel/Iran Nuke thing feels like Cuba and the USA. I Mean is there any reason not to let Cuba have nukes.

As I recall, the Cuban missile crisis involved the Soviet Union transporting short range nuclear weapons to Cuba.
At the time, there were a handful of states capable of building nuclear / atomic weapons.

The situation today is VERY different... it's still very expensive to develop nukes, however, the cost has fallen sufficiently that mid-sized powers can afford to do so if so motivated.

The key question is whether or not an Israeli attack on Iran will deter the country from developing nukes...

Personally, I think that an Israeli attack will lead to a "rally around the flag" effect, solidifying internal support for the Iranian regime and demonstrating why said country very much needs to improve its deterrent capabilities.

You know, sort of like what happened on 9/11.

The attacks on the World Trade Center, etc. didn't cause the US to carefully re-evaluate its foreign policy.
Rather, we pledge allegiance to George W. Bush and mindlessly invaded Iraq....

[kenberg]

I regard it as foolish to bomb anyone unless you are prepared to go to total war with that someone. People get pissed when you drop bombs on them.

[mike777]

kenberg, on 2012-April-09, 12:21, said:

I regard it as foolish to bomb anyone unless you are prepared to go to total war with that someone. People get pissed when you drop bombs on them.

But again Iran has been doing just that for years as we have with Pakistan

to say the least Iran has gotten away with it, it may wonder just what more it can do...in this case build whatever it wants.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2012-April-09, 12:28, said:

But again Iran has been doing just that for years as we have with Pakistan

I think what Mike MEANT to say is that elements of the Iranian government have provided military aid to Islamic militants who have then turned around and launched rocket attacks against Israel...

In much the same way, Israel has provide arms and logistics training to Christian Phalangist militias in Lebanon (Or, if you prefer a more recent example, arming Kurdish irradentist movements within Iran)

Your perpetual one sided view of history is really annoying
There is a hell of a lot of blame here that both sides need to share...

FWIW, I don't see either action as being equivalent to US drone strikes against Pakistan which directly involve the US military claiming responsibility for the attacks that are being launched.