It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Atomic double standards

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 05:29 PM
First off all, this is my first "big thread" i'am starting here on ATS, but i believe if i don't find an answer here, i won't find it anywhere. I am using this forum as a source for many years, and I am very happy that it is still what it is.

Please excuse my spelling, or if i have posted that thread in a wrong section, but I am experiencing difficulties after the redesign.

Atomic double standards
I can't find the balance between two answers to the same question. It's like a riddle to point out facts these days and "deny ignorance". Of course, every man has his "side" he's on, or at least symphaties for the US, Russia, China, Iran and so on. But it's possible to stay objective and I am trying to do so, even if it's very hard.

I am hearing for years now headlines about "rouge states" , "axis of evil" etc.
But one topic I am interested in is the issue about atomic energy / atomic weapons.

Just one question: Who is deciding witch nation CAN have atomic weapons and witch not?

Replace "Who" with your answer to my question. That question has been asked many times, and every time it gets into the headlines the answers are the same - "rouge states", "security threat", "terrorist connections" and so on.

But that isn't really an answer, isn't it ? All major country's like the US, UK even my little banana republic Bulgaria has ties to terrorist groups. Just look at our present history.

So let's go to the next step, about Iran
The key arguments Iran NOT to have even the capability to produce atomic weapons are:

- Ahmadinejad is "crazy" (religious fanatic, etc)
- If Iran has "The Bomb" they will nuke Israel (quoting Ahm.)

and so on, you know most of them ..

Befor i ask my next question - it's not a topic about Iran - it's a generall discussion.

1. Has Iran invaded any other country for the past 100 years ?
2. Is there clear evidence that Iran is sponsoring terrorism?

The answer to those 2 questions is probably "No" (so far).

But yet, somehow the US, UK and other country's in "The Axis of Good" are telling us "No, we think they shouldn't have it" - and we buy it.

The real important question is: Why is the weight of words and opinions so different?

For example, my neighbor buys himself a new car. I like it, it's more secure than my old one. So i get into the shop, because i want a new car too, to feel safer but i can't buy it, because I am vegetarian. Does that sound paradox? yes it does.

And that's the double standard i am talking about. I still can;t find my answer, and i hope that issue can be discussed in a normal way. Please give me real arguments, and don't concentrate so much on Iran. Iran is just the current issue. Many other will follow. Arguments.

Thank you, George

posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 06:17 PM
Hi george
well this is the whole thing why Iran is being obstinate and IMO its a very good reason. Why should India, Pakistan and Israel, all of whom are having some sort of internal or external problems, as well as not being consignors to the Non-Profliferation Treaty have the right to WMD possession. All of these countries also gained the knowledge and equipment on the sneak. Iran while it has had a few minor treaty infringements all of which were pretty much explainable has pretty much been under the monitoring of the IAEA the whole time. None of the above mentioned countries have any type of monitoring whatsoever. For all any of the neighboring countries know of their practices or safeguards , there could be none in place with antiquated equipment to boot.
I think we should be more worried about a country like Pakistan with its shaky government then Iran.


posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 07:09 PM
Because Iran is a terrorist state. They sponsor terrorists. They sponsor Hezbollah, they sponsor Hamas. The have a president who threatens to wipe other countries off the map. They repress their own people.

Hmmm...does it take a genious to figure out why this country would not be a good one to have nukes?

Yes there are other countries such as China, France, GD, Israel who have had these weapons for many years and never used them. I guess over due time these countries have shown their responsibility. I dont think anyone is ready to let Iran have nukes and watch and see if they only use them for deterrence. With good reason i might add.

Pax Americana

posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 08:58 PM
Who is deciding witch nation CAN have atomic weapons and witch not?

Answer : Probably the USA and all the other nuclear powers who are allies to the US.

Reason : When a Country like Iran gains the ability to put Nuclear warheads on missiles they then have more leverage to use against other nuclear countries and more against countries with out. it also increases the amount of confusion in the already confused usage of nukes if the need arises, for instance if the US had to use nukes against another country there's more countries to warn before using them (imagine if another nuclear country was in the dark about it they seen there early warning systems light up and have no idea where its heading, so they launch there and then every other country release there's and you have a domino effect). Then there's the point of nutters coming into power with nukes at there disposal. Then there's the point if Iran get nukes they could attack Israel like you mentioned in your post.

As for your next questions :

1. Has Iran invaded any other country for the past 100 years ?
2. Is there clear evidence that Iran is sponsoring terrorism?


1. No but who's to say there not thinking about it, if they could get hold of a few nukes.
2. No but who's to say they wouldnt and if they got hold of nukes they wouldnt pass them onto to another country to take out a mutual enemy or country they both don't like.

At the end of they day Nukes ain't a offensive weapon today because every one who does have them are to scared to use them for fear of all out nuclear war and destruction of our species, basically there a deterrent, UNLESS some body like Iran gets hold of them and starts a nuclear war.

Nukes scare the # out of me for obvious reasons and there's 2 things that have been said by 2 men to sum it up:

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that one way or another.

-J. Robert Oppenheimer

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

-Albert Einstein

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 01:26 AM
Who decides, well it's not a question of deciding who gets them.

What is being done is to prevent even more countries, friend or foe
from getting nuclear weapons, basically we're trying to prevent nuclear
proliferation, as the more countries with nuclear weapons increases so
does the chance of a nuclear event occuring.

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 01:27 AM

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Because Iran is a terrorist state. They sponsor terrorists. They sponsor Hezbollah, they sponsor Hamas.


Now we might add you and your country to the axis of evil as well. After all you are no better than Iran. The US sponsors MEK and I can assure you the list of terrorist organizations sponsored by the US is much and much bigger.

Mujahedin e Khalq (MEK)

Also known as
From its original Persian name, Sãzimãn-i Mujãhidn-i Khalq-i Irãn (Holy Warrior Organization of the Iranian People) / Sazman-i Mojahedin-i Khalq-i Iran (Organization of the Freedom Fighters of the Iranian People) / Sazeman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran (Organization of People’s Holy Warriors of Iran) / Sazeman-e-Mujahideen-e-Khalq-e-Iran, the group’s name was shortened to Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) or Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO). Other spellings: Mujahiddin e Khahq, al-Khalq Mujahideen Organization , Mujahedeen Khalq, Modjaheddins khalg, Moudjahiddin-é Khalq. The MEK is also known as: National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA) (the military wing of the MEK) / Armée de Libération nationale iranienne (ALNI); People’s Mujahidin Organization of Iran (PMOI) / People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI) / Organisation des moudjahiddin du peuple d’Iran (OMPI) / Organisation des moudjahidines du peuple

The Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) is an Iranian terrorist organization that was based in Iraq until recently. It subscribes to an eclectic ideology that combines its own interpretation of Shiite Islamism with Marxist principles. The group aspires to overthrow the current regime in Iran and to establish a democratic, socialist Islamic republic. This Islamic socialism can only be attained through the destruction of the existing regime and the elimination of Western influence, described as "Westoxication" . To achieve this Islamic ideology, the use of physical force, armed struggle or jihad is necessary. Besides having had an alliance with Saddam Hussein, the organization has or had ties with: Amal, the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Al Fatah, and other Palestinian factions. The MEK is even suspected of past collusion with the regime of the Taliban in Afghanistan.


[edit on 7-4-2007 by Mdv2]

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 02:00 AM
1. Has Iran invaded any other country for the past 100 years ?

Well, they did venture inside Iraq off and on for over 8 years and they did launch missiles at Bagdad (all-be-it conventionally armed ones) and they did venture into Turkey chasing after Kurds. You may call it aggression or invasion or defense or whatever else you desire, but it clearly was not friendly.

2. Is there clear evidence that Iran is sponsoring terrorism?

There is abundant evidence that Iran sponsors terrorists and terrorism; however, it is difficult to hold that against them since most other countries do the same whenever it is in their perceived national interest.

Iran, like every other country that has ever developed nukes has either tried to, or has carried out their actions in secret. Again though that isn't any thing to really hold against them. The fact is that Iran would be considered a serious threat to the interests of Israel, the U.K., the U.S., their neighbouring countries and in fact to most of the so-called Western world. Further, Iran is not exactly a pillar of stability and there is a small, but significant possibility, that any such weapons could end up being used imprudently and agressively. They would be considered a threat to the petroleum supplies of many countries. There is no reason to tolerate such a threat if it can possibly be avoided.

You have not said so, but the general drift of your post seems to be that the world should just leave Iran alone to do whatever the hell they want in the nuclear arena and that just is not going to happen. You can call it selfishness (which it is), you can call it bullying (which it is), or you can call it anything else you desire (and probably be pretty close to right), but allowing Iran to develop and deploy nuclear weapons is decidely not in the best interests of the Western world, or, in my personal opinion, the world at large.

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 02:37 AM
I myself have not seen anything that would warrant an assault on Iran, rather, I have however, seen more than enough evidence that would warrant an invasion, and regime change of the US. The problem being there that they spend far too much on their military to be ousted.

It really boils down to who has the bigger guns.

It doesnt matter if your cause is just, or completley bloodthirsty, the US and Britain will simply lie to their public to make it look just and necessary.
It doesnt matter if the country in question has actually done anything wrong at all, that too will simply be made up and broadcast on the news as if it were facts.
The only thing that matters is how strong their military power is.
The US has nukes, they have the big guns... anyone else posessing nuclear technology has the ability to have the big guns too. The US doesnt want that, essentially the US government views itself as the only country who can be the worlds superpower... not because they have any justification, just because they can. Because it's in their own interest to dominate. Just like every empire that has fallen before the US, they too simply seek domination.

If the US government actually wanted to do some good, there are many countries which desperately need help, a few african countries, colombia still has some issues with geurilla warfare sparking up, and other countries.
These countries have little to no military to put up a fight. They have a moral crisis going on that needs an outside party to help with.
Essentially, helping alot of these countries would be dead easy compared to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Why hasnt the US made an effort to assist with those countries? Because they are of no signifigant strategic importance for domination. The middle east however, is.

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 05:39 AM
Thanks for your answers, even if most of them are the usual accusations i hear about Iran.

Don't forget that the CIA was responsible for the attempt for a "Regime Change" in Iran back in the 70's. An the US is (indirectly) the reason why Iran has become "a threat". So US interference in this country goes 30+ years back in history.

And if we talk about US interference in the whole world i remember a list of 212 US military interferences in over 53 country's since WW2

Sure, maybe 70% of them can be justified, but if we look at it objectively we see the real aggressor. And the US is the only country that used nukes. So where is the logic, that the same country is now deciding who can deploy nuclear weapons and who not? A country that didn't even sign the Kioto Agreement?

So bottom line, it's the same like having a criminal as a judge in a court. And that doesn't make any sense, does it?

Like u4ria said, atomic weapons are a good defense, and Iran need that. They better be concentrating on resolving this issue diplomatically, than with a new war. Because word's like "We will bomb Israel" are just the answer to the Western aggression in the Middle East. Iran wasn't in the news before the US and their alleys invaded Afghanistan and Iraq - right? Give me one headline before 2001, that Iran is making any verbal aggression to it's neighbors - you won't find it.

So still, my question is not answered with strong arguments. No, actually there is one: Oil.

PS: Again, don't "stamp" me as an "America Hater" - I am not, just having my problems to see another millions die for oil.

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 08:18 AM
Of course Oil plays its part after all it makes the world go round and makes people and governments rich!

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 09:18 AM
Oh yeah the oil thing again. Im so sick and tired of hearing people talk about the oil. If its all about the oil, and thats why we went into Iraq, then where is the freakin oil???? Why are the prices so high??? I have seen absolutely no proof that the US went into Iraq for oil. If we did, then where is it??

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:00 AM
Did i say it was just about the Oil no i didn't, but if you don't think Oil had nothing to do with it your mistaken, OIL is the biggest commodity any country can have and like i said it makes the world go round and makes you lots of money and money is power! why do you think there lots of oil fields in Europe and America that are not being used, because there waiting for the east to run out then they will start pumping it for ourselves and to sell at high price to any body else like the middle east, if you stop the flow of oil to a country it cripples them therefore its a handy way of controlling countries.

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:22 AM
Simply. When guns came out they were considered the "great equalizer." For a country this is nukes.

When you have them you can bully, and when you dont your bullied. Those cries of terrorist this and terrorist that is are our reason to bully. You want proof? Look at North Korea. Kim jung il is raving mad. His people need "regime change" about 10x as much as Iraq did. He proliferates. He has killed countless of his own citizens.

But guess what...

We won't go to war with NK until they start bombing Japan and theres only one reason why

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:28 AM

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Oh yeah the oil thing again. Im so sick and tired of hearing people talk about the oil. If its all about the oil, and thats why we went into Iraq, then where is the freakin oil???? Why are the prices so high??? I have seen absolutely no proof that the US went into Iraq for oil. If we did, then where is it??

Well, it's often used, maybe you don't remember it quite well, but there is actually a word called "long-term" , do you know what it means?
(Sorry for the ironic way, but I am just surprised by the answer ..)

Do you really think, that if that war is for oil, the prices will fall down? It's all about survival for the next 20+ years.

Still no real arguments seen ...

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 12:20 PM
The golden rule: he who has gold makes the rules.

The nuclear rule: he who has nukes makes the rules.

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 01:29 PM
The premise, "let them have nukes" is somewhat a misnomer.

The US Manhatten project invented them,Britain was a partner in the Manhatten Project, the Russians stole the technology by underhanded means when they were a supposed allie of both nations.

The Chinese got their help from the Russians, India got help from the Chinese and Russians when China and Russia were at odds.

So on and so forth...................

I guess my question back at the original poster and postee's is;

What good can come from letting any more nations possess these weapons when the idea should be to get rid of them altogether?

Left/right politicing, hawk/peacenik, radical or moderate it should be everyones goal to rid the earth of this scourge - not encourage the spread in the name of whatever political axe one has to grind.

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 01:33 PM
I hope you dont think your country went into Iraq to take the oil, so they can give it to you, they dont care about you.

There is a double standard, America is the land of double standards, and double speak. Iran is a terrorist state, that just makes no sense, you must think Iran is evil and is the equivalent to Nazis, when George Bushs grandfather, Prescott, was the admitted top Nazi agent in America, and Karl Roves grandfather was the governor of a Nazi province in Austria.

If they are supporting the groups fighting the MultiNational forces, then they only want you guys out of the Middle East, okay, you have no business there in the first place. Iraq didnt attack you on 911, Iraq didnt have WMDs, Saddam is gone, what are you guys doing there?

You want civil war, you are inciting it. You bomb mosques...then you hand out propaganda leaflets, just like the Nazis did, saying how its radical shiaa or sunni groups , they did it, they are the ones who hate you....just like the Nazis with ooh its those communist jews, they bombed our Reichtag!

You kidnap diplomats and torture them and force them to stop engaging in diplomatic meetings.

You are fueling the insurgency as you call it, by committing atrocity after atrocity against Iraqi civilians, in raids and such where whole families get killed like with Haditha, and oh its not an isolated incident by far, it happens every day....the Iraqi men, their friends and family being killed, in their rightful anger, join the nearest militia to wage war against you and fight for their freedom.

You spew out brilliant propaganda, in which the resistance forces are labeled as insurgents and terrorists, and you lie about how they are with Al Queda, they lie when they say Al Queda attacked us on 911 from caves and basements, they lie about the number of casualities on both sides, they lie about the WMDs and about Iran supporting the resistance groups.

They lie about the IEDs, which are really military grade explosives attached to the vehicles beforehand, and there is proof because at all these IED attacks, there is no hole in the ground, the ground is practically unscathed, proving the bomb was attached to the vehicle, and I guess improvised bombs made in basements, can reduce a armored vehicle into a burning pile of scrap heap, no only military explosives can do that, but who puts the bombs on the vehicles? Thats your guess to make.

They lie about everything. The fog of war, nothing is as it seems. During war, all sides engage in military propaganda to muster up support, what makes you think your USA is the only exception?

Time to stop living in this bubble that America is invincible, and is the epitome of righteousness in the world. It is not.

America has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, they have something like 1,600 nuclear warheads according to the US military.

Guess how many nukes Iran has? None. Zero. Not even a warhead. Why are they a threat to you again? You really think Iran is stupid enough to want to nuke you, when they know they are finished if they do? Stop buying into the propaganda, use your brain.

You think that anyone is stupid enough to attack America, like Bin Laden, why did he attack America? All he achieved was he got America up his ass, and we have the carnage we see now in the Middle East by the Americans with this whole "War on Terrorism". All Bin Laden achieved, if he did do it, was to empower the American government rather than bring it down, the government gets more funding, more control, people cant disagree or they are aiding the enemy, its the perfect smoke screen, the perfect boogey man, a shadowy enemy that cant be defeated, some arab terrorists.

Its ridiculous, it insults the intelligence, it doesnt even belong in Hollywood, thats how ridiculous it is.

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 02:17 PM
No country today should be creating nuclear weapons, and Iran is no exception. It will just take one country with a wack job government to get their hands on a nuke and actaully useit. The human race cannot afford that to happen. I don't see the logic in trying to argue the case for Iran's right to become a nuclear power.

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 02:27 PM

If America is so bad in your opinion, just what country do you think is better? If America is so bad where should be turn for leadership into a better world? It sounds to me like you think Iran is an innocent nation and we should look to them as our beacon of freedom.

I am just an average American and am totally blinded by my patriotism so please teach me the better way.

posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 02:58 PM

Originally posted by itguysrule

If America is so bad in your opinion, just what country do you think is better? If America is so bad where should be turn for leadership into a better world? It sounds to me like you think Iran is an innocent nation and we should look to them as our beacon of freedom.

If its such a great place then why do we have people sleeping on the gdam streets? Maybe before you go and try to make the world a better place, you should try working on it here first before you venture out and improve the world.

LOL Who wants a leader that doesn't even have his own house in order?

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in