Let's see, what positive for the rest of the world brings nuclear Pakistan, the best regional ally of the US, with all those "medrese" which openly teach people to kill and can slip out of the CIA control any moment? I don't see any excitement in media regarding the nuclear Pakistan, seemingly the close neighbourhood of the Pakistani religious fanatics of all kinds and the nukes is ok. Why worry about Iran? Rich countries must have the means of containing the aggressions of robber-states and defending their own treasures. It's plain. If the house of your neighbour is arsoned and burglarized last night, you buy the pistol. Iran has great deposits of oil and gas. It must have weapons to protect it's property. Nobody wants the fate of Iraq.

Well, it's going to take Iran quite awhile to even build up a meager stockpile of nuclear weapons. Wouldn't you think they'd rather keep the weapons for themselves?

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

Don't forget that there is ONLY ONE rogue nation which has ever used nukes and is still using Depleted Uranium Bombs classified as WMDs together with Israel which has got the illegal weapons from or with the help of this rogue nation. To speak about Iran in this connection is a joke. Certainly it would be easier to start demolishing Israeli nukes which are illegal, not under IAEA control and the country has also threatened to use these nukes. Please, CONCENTRATE TO THIS PROBLEM FIRST as the WMDs already exist ... they are not imagination as in Iran. Israel is also a religioisly ill society in a territory belonging to other people and therefore they don't have the moral typical to native people. Iranians are living in their own country big enough for them and having a lot of natural resources.

Murmurs across the nation -

"the man is going to get us all killed"

__________________

Bush is going to get us all killed? Substitute "terrorism" for "Bush", and you sound just like him

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

hrrmmm....

hail!

if iran, or any other countries who conduct themselves in a manner contrary to american intrests aquire nuclear arms, one result would be they might not be as vulnerable to a US invasion.

so i guess the way conduct themselves might change. they might become more bellicose and less compliant to the needs and demands of the united states.

how would this be a good thing for america?

actually, doesnt everyone having nuclear arms make the outbreak of any war, including world war III less likely?


aye.

Until they actually do something towards this, there's no legitimate claim for us to say that they cant have them while we do.

Dont count on it. When people get into a position of power, they try to keep that power. How stupid would it be to nuke us when they know we'd turn Tehran into Alamogordo? Khomeini's not stupid.

__________________


Cultural insecurities are the foundation of American conservatism.

Seriously, think about it. At the beginning of Bush's Presidency he declared an Axis of Evil that included Iran, Iraq and North Korea. He then invaded the country without nukes (Iraq, and turned it into a clusterf*ck) and gave up on the country with nukes (North Korea).

Knowing this, what sane Iranian leader wouldnt want to get nukes to use as a deterrant? They would be stupid NOT to pursue nuclear technology. And with the militaristic authoritarians in charge of the White House now, I sure cant blame Iran for pursuing it.

__________________


Cultural insecurities are the foundation of American conservatism.

Its not even just the US they seek to deter, they also are surrounded by nuclear powers - China, Pakistan, Israel, India.

They are the only ones without this power. Your right, given the reality of where they live (and the oil on which they sit) it would be strange if they were not seeking such a deterrent.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Let me put to you two scenarios: one is a country that has no nukes. Granted they are expected to develop nukes within 5-10 years, and have threatened the existence of a neighboring nation and have a history of involvement in terrorist action. The second country has nukes, has actually used them, has invaded two countries in the last four years, has a confessed record of overthrowing elected govts and supporting terrorist action, and threatens war with the first nation on a seemingly daily basis. Who presents the biggest threat to world peace here?

Ah, the old red-herring.

My question was about Iran, but since you can't answer it, you've decided to head off on an anti-US rant.

Well done. Pointless and unresponsive to the actual issue, but at Analyst will cheer you on.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Holy Shit! The was the most overt dodge I've ever seen!

Kudos to you!

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":

Dodge? I bow to the master Matt I was simple trying to paint you an analogy of which greater should be viewed as a greater threat to the world? You can call it US bashing all you want, but that wasn't my intention. I was merely trying to make some people see that the threat posed by Iran, whilst it may be great, isn't necessarily any greater or less than that posed by the US. The US is preparing to attack Iran as a "pre-emptive" measure. However I ask you this, if you were an Iranian and saw every day news reports of the US wanting to attack, would you not support a pre-emptive attack on the US as a "defence" option? Would you then blame Iran for starting a war, or acting in self-defence? Think about it in the reverse context from the US perspective.

The flaw here is the implication that you must ignore any but the "worst" threat.

Have a peek at how Iran mass-executes it's citizens for all manner or "crimes" and then tell me this is a country led by rational people.

Again, we're talking about Iran, so let's see if we can stay focused........

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Why is it that everytime someone tries looking through the other side's lens they get accused of being anti-US?

As a buddy of mine on another board would say: Jaysus...

__________________


Cultural insecurities are the foundation of American conservatism.