• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

The Nuclear offer

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
NUCLEAR OFFER
- Iran allowed to buy spare parts for civilian aircraft made by US manufacturers
- Restrictions lifted on the use of US technology in agriculture
- Provision of light water nuclear reactors and enriched fuel
- Support for Iranian membership of World Trade Organisation



Well this is the crux of the US/European offer to Iran. I have a feeling that spare parts for civilian aircraft will also end up including military aircraft as Iran has few parts and plenty of grounded planes because of this.

Good deal or Bad deal?
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands

TrIbAlNuT

TRIBE Member
The US and EU just want the Oil, they will bend as far as Iran wants them to bend. From the above conditions, it looks to me like Iran got what it wanted.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Well it would require Iran to give up its intentions to build a bomb (sorry a peacefull enrichment facility) for what amounts to a slight openning of the embargo and a slightly warmer relationship.
 

Hamza

TRIBE Member
Can someone give me a logical (non moral) reason as to why Iran should not be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction?

Please base your answer in facts, laws, norms.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Hamza, they don't deserve weapons. Their government is an explicit threat to Israel, they're hostile to the West, their ambitions are clearly malaligned with democratic ideals and they support terrorists.

Those are all the reasons you need.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Oh, but don't look over there! You know, where that irritating argument
about hypocrisy and culturally racist behaviour festers...
 

Hamza

TRIBE Member
I wasn't going to turn there, I like your answer.
Do you think they already have some sort of chemical weapons capability? I do feel that Iran would do two things in case of desperation:

1- use whatever chem. weapons it has
2- activate its sleeper cells in other countries and hit whatever targets that it can
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
Hamza said:
I wasn't going to turn there, I like your answer.
Do you think they already have some sort of chemical weapons capability? I do feel that Iran would do two things in case of desperation:

1- use whatever chem. weapons it has
2- activate its sleeper cells in other countries and hit whatever targets that it can

They've got advanced ballisted missiles and cruise missiles as well. They also have excellent quality special forces people who specialise in setting up things like Hezbollah. All the shit that happened in Lebanon that sent the Americans running away, was all Iran. Specifically I'm referring to the bombing of the Marine barracks and the bombing attack that took out the entire CIA chain of command in Lebanon. (I think it was their leadership echelon that was meeting in a hotel room, and above them was planted a giant bomb). They were also involved in helping Hezbollah bomb the JCC in Buenos Aires in revenge for the assassination of a leader.

Iran also said they would attack the new pipelines in SE Asia, which are a centerpeice of 21st century American foreign policy.

They could also bring the worst kind of hell to the Americans in Iraq by actively supporting the guerillas with training and materials that are even better than what they've already got.

If Iran wanted to pull the trigger, they could bring down a world of hurt on a lot of people.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
~atp~ said:
Hamza, they don't deserve weapons. Their government is an explicit threat to Israel, they're hostile to the West, their ambitions are clearly malaligned with democratic ideals and they support terrorists.

Those are all the reasons you need.

Is this really your position? I smell something fishy and for once it's not your mom.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Hamza

TRIBE Member
yes, I don't think the missiles and bombs will be the main threat. Those can always be taken out in a shock and awe style blitz right of the bat. The real danger - as you point out - is via activities in other countries (option 2 as I listed it). I am pretty sure they have agents in all the important countries, and will not be surprised if their diplomatic missions abroad house some of them.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
No, it is not my position at all. While I agree that diplomatic tactics may be applied in order to help mitigate any obviously direct violent intentions (explicitly stated ones, at least), I do not agree that military response is justified, almost as an absolute. I am alluding more specifically to the hostile image that is only going to be reinforced if the U.S. or other Western nations are not extraordinarily careful about their approach here.

And even my remarks above rub me the wrong way because of the hypocrisy of such morally idealistic nation enforcement. The U.S. and Canada need to get their own shit together first before extending that principle excessively abroad...
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
There was a school of activists who thought the only way to acheive world peace was to give nukes to everybody.

Another school thought in order for the USA to ensure nuclear survival was to unilaterally disarm. I actually laughed out loud when I read this in first year.

Hey Keith, for the record: I totally oppose an attack on Iran. I also oppose Iran's bullshit.

Do we oppose too many things? Why can't we just be positive? "SURE! Iran can have nukes! SURE! America can attack Iran! SURE! we can disenfranchise the planet!" Why do we gotta such nay sayers?

(ps my msn is fuk'd)
 

Hamza

TRIBE Member
haha, yes, i remember reading the the "lets proliferate nukes" theory...mearsheimer I think ...not sure if it was his "Back to the Future" article or another one...will have to dig it out.

The theory does have some merit when you examine the pakistan - india case (some...merit...not 100% because there were other factors involved).


I oppose an attack on iran, i oppose the bs statements that the iranian leadership issues daily, but I support a state's right to pursue whatever defensive technology/weaponry it wants.

However, from a canadian perspective, I'd push for full disarmament of nuclear weapons (which will never happen..insert LOL here).
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
I like the idea of a nuclear-free middle east. The purpose of that idea (put forth by some Arab states) was to indirectly propose that if Israel gave up its nukes, everyone else would stop trying to get them. That's about 75 years away from being even remotely possible under the best of circumstances.

My position on whether or not Iran should have nuclear weapons should be considered by many to be hypocritical. I'm ok with Israel having nukes and I don't want Iran to have nukes. That's my actual position. I oppose Iranian nukes long before I oppose Israeli ones. I could prolly go on about my personal motivations; and then be branded as a devout racist, imperialist, capitalist, fascist, unilateralist agent of Zionist criminal aggression.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Part of the issue with Pakistan, Iran, and South Africa was in regards to the stability of the government. South Africa was going to fall politically while having a nuclear bomb, Pakistan was taken in a military coup while having a bomb and even the most conservative expect Iran to have a student revolution in the next 10 - 15 years or right about when they get the bomb.

In the cases of India, Israel and China we don't expect there to be any radical changes in government. In the case of the USSR breaking up very quick action brought there arsenal back into control within a short period of time.

Iran having a nuclear device in many respects balance of powers Israels, however the concern is that it might not be secured in case of a revolution. This also means that a third party country can't cause a revolution in Iran to take over oil supplies without threat of a nuclear bomb getting lose.
 

SellyCat

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
By all rights Brazil is closer to having a bomb then Iran.

I think Brazil is one of two Latin American countries to have actually HAD the bomb and chose to give it up (like South Africa did). Venezuela may have been the other. (And I may mistaken about which country it was)
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Argentina actually. however Brazil has Uranium and processing capability along with missile technology and the design.

Brazil might be able to field a weapon faster then Canada
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
However South Africa is the only nation that gave up the bomb in a completed sense.

That's amazing. I hear nuclear capabilities are harder to quit then smoking.
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
Argentina actually. however Brazil has Uranium and processing capability along with missile technology and the design.

Brazil might be able to field a weapon faster then Canada

The Brazilians have advanced processing technology that they don't let the inspectors see.

Both Brazil and Canada are going to get stuck in the area of missile technology. Let's face it, that shit is rocket science.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top