IraN, not IraQ!

[Akaran_D]

I knew this was going to happen. Hope to hell the UN decides to do something about it this time.

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- The United States has intelligence indicating Iran is trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said.

Powell partially confirmed claims by an Iranian opposition group that Tehran is deceiving the United Nations and is attempting to secretly continue activities meant to give it atomic arms by next year.

"I have seen intelligence which would corroborate what this dissident group is saying," Powell told reporters Wednesday as he traveled to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Santiago, Chile. "And it should be of concern to all parties."

Pressed by reporters on the intelligence reports, Powell said the intelligence indicates that Iran "had been actively working on delivery systems" capable of carrying a nuclear weapon.

Powell said there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has developed the technology to make a nuclear weapon, but suggested that the regime is working to adapt missiles for nuclear warheads.

"I'm talking about information that says that they not only had these missiles, but I'm aware of information that suggests they were working hard as to how to put the two together," Powell said.

A senior official for the National Council for Resistance in Iran said Tuesday that a bomb diagram -- along with an unspecified amount of weapons-grade uranium -- was provided to Iran by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the disgraced former head of Pakistani's nuclear development which was tied to both Iran and Libya. (Full story)

The official said the designs were handed to the Iranians between 1994 and 1996, while Khan delivered HEU -- highly enriched uranium -- in 2001.

Banned in the United States as a terrorist organization, the group was instrumental in 2002 in revealing Iran's enrichment program in the central city of Natanz, based on what it said was information provided by sources in Iran.

The opposition group says a facility at Lavizan-Shian northeast of Tehran was part of a secret nuclear weapons program.

Powell declined comment on Khan but said that "for 20 years the Iranians have been trying to hide things from the international community."

Iran says its sole interest is to generate nuclear fuel through low-level uranium enrichment, but the United States suspects Iran wants to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium.

Enrichment does not violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, but the International Atomic Energy Agency and most of its members want Iran to scrap enrichment plans as a confidence building measure.

Iran announced suspension of enrichment last week, and the agency said it would police that commitment starting next week, in advance of a Nov. 25 IAEA board meeting.

The pledge reduced Washington's hopes of having the board refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for alleged violations of the Nonproliferation Treaty.

Tehran has not dropped plans to run 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium for what it says will be the fuel requirements of a nuclear reactor to be finished next year.

It currently possesses less than 1,000 centrifuges. But if it added 500 centrifuges, experts say Iran would be able to make enough weapons-grade uranium to make a bomb annually.

[Nick]

Yeah lets believe what the US tells us about WMD

[Xorian]

I still dont understand why Iran is so much despised for trying to posses nuclear weapons...of course it would be better if NO ONE had them...but how can you forbid to Iran to have them when, for ex. Israel has it.....

[Animalor]

"I'm talking about information that says that they not only had these missiles, but I'm aware of information that suggests they were working hard as to how to put the two together," Powell said.

[Fash]

"We're about to invade. We are going to overwhelm you, and if you resist us, we will kill you. Really the best thing for you to do when we invade is to go home."

iran is just the next shit-puddle on our path to world domination. resistance is futile.

[Zaelath]

You knew what was going to happen? That you were going to trump up some way to fuck over Iran since you can't let them get the upper hand over Iraq when you leave, and like, since you're in the area...

SANTIAGO, Chile (AP) -- The United States has intelligence indicating Iran is trying to fit missiles to carry nuclear weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said.

Powell partially confirmed claims by an Iranian opposition group that Tehran is deceiving the United Nations and is attempting to secretly continue activities meant to give it atomic arms by next year.

This is the same kind of information, from the same kind of sources, that had you invade Iraq on a WMD hunt as well. You just have no interest in being credible at all any more.

[Nick]

iran is just the next shit-puddle on our path to world domination. resistance is futile.

Ok, again masterly baited Fash, however, in case you didn't notice.....the US already had world domination. Do you not realise your losing your grip on it with these stunts?

And since when did we forget that all men are equal, instead of some fat fuck with a star spangled banner seeing himself as godly compared to some poor farmer who hasn't done a goddamn thing.

For every fucko like you that 'terrorists' murder, the safer this world will be.

[Hesten]

Wheee, american intel says that theyre working on getting stuff to get a nuclear power plant up and running, which CAN also produce material for nuclear bombs. Could have sword that was around the same they said at the LAST war you guys started, which all proved to be incorrect, and forced you to try and find new excuses for invading (excuses that still only brainwashed Bushies can find credible).


Now lets see, the US got over 100 working nuclear power plants. They already got nuclear weapons, and clearly the capability to make more, and thus threatening world peace. Theyre self-sufficient in their ability to mine more uranium useable in nuclear weapon production. And theyre ATM lead by a highly religious person, who let his religious beliefs effect national policy, a person who ignore worldwide problems and situations unless it benefit him directly, and a person who managed to invade TWO countries in 4 years.

How about we do something about that first?

[Akaran_D]

Hi Zael. Let me restate this for you since you obviously didn't get it.
It was a given that after we "finished" with Iraq, or got "close" to it, as I'm sure it's being seen in the eyes of the CiC that Iran was going to be the next target. I'm not even saying that the intell is valid. I hope it's valid if the US decides to take action this time. I strongly hope that it's valid enough to get the UN involved. I also strongly hope that if it isn't, then the UN will attempt to block us in some way from commiting to military action.

Better?

[Zaelath]

Oh, so you're gonna let them go for about 5 years or so? Or perhaps even more hillariously, you think you'll be out of Iraq come January? ahahahahahaahfuckoffahahahahahah

[Voronwë]

apparently the White House thought we were going to war with Iran in the mid 90s for a period of time, after they sponsored Hezbollah strikes against our bases in Saudi Arabia.

This is a potentially bad situation though, because the farther along Tehran gets with Nukes, the more likely Isreal is to go ahead and take that reactor out. That could obviously set a pile of dominoes going. They certainly wouldnt have to worry about the airspace on the way to iran, with an ally controlling Iraq.

[Akaran_D]

Where in my post did I say any of that?
Your troll-fu is weak.

Voro brings up a good point: Whom would you rather invade Iran: US or Israel?

[Zaelath]

t was a given that after we "finished" with Iraq, or got "close" to it

When do you think that will be?

Really, ya'll seem to want to regurgitate everything else the Bush administration serves up as fact, so I have to assume you think that will be shortly after January? Or if you're hedging and talking about your "peace keeping force" (of what was the estimate? 50,000?) troops being done in Iraq sometime in 2010 and you're happy to leave Iran to develop nukes for that long?

[Nick]

Akaran, I dont think Voronwe is saying which one would you prefer attacked Iraq, it seems he is just stating what might well happen if the Iranians decided to force Israel to play their card. (a card that is substantially supported by the US, for no fucking good reason whatsoever BY THE WAY)

Which would be beyond disaster for the Middle East.

And again, I think the point your missing is that none of these countries necessarily need to be invaded, I suspect air strikes would suffice, yet the US's attitude is so retarded it has started thinking its ok to invade other countries.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG ..get it ?

[Akaran_D]

Actually, I don't Teeny.
Airstrikes simply stop them for the moment. 5, 6 years, tops. That's all. It's a stop gap measure. Invading - if done right - can stop it for decades.

And I know Voro wasn't saying who would be prefered. That's what I said. If it comes down to it, which would you rather: US forces moving, or Israeli forces moving?

Zael, I don't know when it'll be. And you ignored the entire other half of that sentance:

as I'm sure it's being seen in the eyes of the CiC

. CIC, if you don't know, stands for Commander in Chief.

[Nick]

For some reason you are ignoring a third, more ingenious option, cut your imperialistic bullshit (not you, US foreign policy itself) and sit down and talk with the people who hate you, showing you are open to comprimise and that you dont actually believe you are gods gift.

Real discussion, with real comprimise, maybe even in terms of relief, lifting of sanctions (which mainly only tend to hurt the innocents anyway) all these things are better than just fighting. And less expensive and crippling for YOUR OWN economy and FUTURE SAFETY!

Do you just punch someone in the face on the street if they look threatening? No, you would wait until you had explored most opportunities to avoid the fight before resorting to it.

[Zaelath]

Whatever your rationalisation, look at the source... it's once again the disgruntled opposition to the current government. You need to stop outing your own operatives and get some first hand intel, then perhaps the rest of the world can back you.

I mean really; fool me once, shame on .. shame on you. Fool me .. you can't get fooled again.

[Voronwë]

All i'm saying is it is a bad situation, dont think Akaran was misrepresenting that aspect.

If we invade Iran, it would be perceived as an aid to Israel regardless of whether or not it was. We need to be weakening the rhetoric of Islamic fundamentalism around the world, and a first step is to get seriously engaged in the Palestinian issue i think.

[Atokal]

Teeny, what is the alternative?

Let a country that is ruled by emotion (read "not logic") have nuclear capabilities? They are a mercurial people, not prone to restraint. The next Ayatollah (sp) comes along and says Allah is God and Mohamed is his prophet and our nuke is the finger of God. FUCK YEAH.

This nuke would be what? a deterant to Israel?

HAR.

Someone has to stop the proliferation. I also am hoping the UN does something and preferably not with Hans. Israel will be forced to do something if the UN and US do nothing.

Scary situation.

[Zaelath]

Let a country that is ruled by emotion (read "not logic") have nuclear capabilities?

If that wasn't so sad, I'd be laughing uncontrollably.

[Atokal]

Let a country that is ruled by emotion (read "not logic") have nuclear capabilities?

If that wasn't so sad, I'd be laughing uncontrollably.

I hear that laughing uncontrollably is a sign of mental instability. So I believe that is exactly what you are doing.

Go and read some of the outlandish statements made by the Iranian government during the Iraq / Iran war. Read that it is a commonly held belief that to die for their religion is a great thing. Go and read what they feel towards Israel as a nation. Then come back and tell me this is a rational government that would show restraint.

Perhaps I should have said a country that has a propensity towards religious fanaticism.

But in your world I suppose another country with nukes is a good fucking thing?

Shaddap you drooling idiot.

[Voronwë]

Atokal, you obviously being an expert on the Persian people, know that over the last 10 or more years, Iran has seen a vast expansion in their middle class, and a growing trend towards empowering a secular government. A couple of years ago, the tide swung back towards the religious fundamentalists who seeing their power as increasingly vulnerable, removed a substantial number of political candidates from the parliamentary elections.

Certainly there are a large number of poeple in Iran who are manipulated by religiously toned propaganda, but that problem is not unique to Iran - or to our time for that matter. That is basicly the common thread in human society since just about forever.

[Aabidano]

Left alone, Iran has a pretty good chance of becoming a moderate country. They've changed significantly in the last 10-15 years. Almost entirely on their own I might add. There's a very large segment of the country that's under 40 and a pushing for change within their own system of government.

Negotiate to avoid nuclear proliferation, but beyond that leave them alone. What Israel has isn't (or shouldn't be) part of the discussion.[/b]

*Edit - I can't spell

[Aslanna]

Let a country that is ruled by emotion (read "not logic") have nuclear capabilities?

If that wasn't so sad, I'd be laughing uncontrollably.

I hear that laughing uncontrollably is a sign of mental instability. So I believe that is exactly what you are doing.

I could be wrong but I think he's be laughing at the irony of your statement and how it's analagous to the US at the present time.

[Brotha]

This is the same kind of information, from the same kind of sources, that had you invade Iraq on a WMD hunt as well. You just have no interest in being credible at all any more.

Banned in the United States as a terrorist organization, the group was instrumental in 2002 in revealing Iran's enrichment program in the central city of Natanz, based on what it said was information provided by sources in Iran.

Yep they obviously have no credibility whatsoever . I'm not saying we should take what they say at face value (they obviously have an agenda), but we should definently take what they say somewhat seriously. From what I've read, we're investigating that info for ourselves and basing our conclusions on more than just what that group says.

Here's a pretty interesting piece titled "Wargaming Iran" by WFB.

If you can do it, forget Fallujah for just a minute. Think Iran. A productive way to do this is to read James Fallows in the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly. The title of the article is, “Will Iran Be Next?” The subtitle gives away the conclusions, and so will here be suppressed.

Not so the structure of Mr. Fallows’s extraordinarily ingenious exploration of the challenge. We all know that “war games” are conducted at many levels. At the most rudimentary level, you and your constant companion can have agreed to basic rules: You will agree to act as Peerless Leader Kim Jong Il, your partner as President of the United States. Peerless Leader moves aggressively, you counter the move; the colloquy proceeds, and in the end — something happens, as in chess.

Imagine a war game in which there are seven actors, each one of them hugely experienced in government, whether as sometime head of the CIA, National Security Adviser to the President, U.S. representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Secretary of Defense — and so on.

The meeting among these gentlemen has the objective of formulating a recommendation to the President on how to cope with the advances in Iran toward aggressive nuclear armament.

The plot thickens at a great and readable pace.

Assumptions are sought and accepted. The question was asked: “Should Iran be likened to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, in whose possession nuclear weapons would pose an unacceptable threat, or to Pakistan, India, or even North Korea, whose nuclear ambitions the United States regrets but has decided to live with for now?” The immediate answer: The United States cannot “tolerate Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power.”

Here is another postulate in the war game. “At some point, relatively soon, Iran will have an arsenal that no outsiders can destroy, and America will not know in advance when that point has arrived.”

Think back, as everyone in the room did, to Israel in 1981, when Begin sent planes to destroy the nuclear reactor Saddam Hussein was building at Osirak. That set back Saddam’s nuclear program what proved to be indefinitely. Why couldn’t Israel do the same thing against Iran?

But in the current scenario, Israel doesn’t know where exactly the nuclear laboratories are, any more than we do. Add to that, the problem of Israel’s military in getting to those we reasonably suspect as warranting destruction. “Israeli planes would have to fly over Saudi Arabia and Jordan, probably a casus belli in itself given current political conditions; or over Turkey, also a problem; or over American-controlled Iraq,” which would require (and signal) U.S. approval of the mission. Add this: There isn’t any way Israeli air demolitionists could get back from their mission. The targets are too far away.

So, the war-gamers conclude, a strike would need to be undertaken by the United States. Here three stages are envisioned. The first, a bombing mission targeting Revolutionary Guard concentrations. That, actually, is easy to do, a 24-hour assignment using existing resources.

Next in gravity would be taking on the destruction of known and likely nuclear sites. To do this comprehensively would mean targeting 350 points, and to execute such an operation would take days.

To move on to Stage 3, a regime change, we would have to use U.S. ground troops. And to do either the second or the third stage, you would need air bases far beyond anything now available. “Compared with Iraq, Iran has three times the population, four times the land area, and five times the problems,” one gamesman pointed out.

Pause and think retrogressively. “About Iran’s intentions there is no disagreement. Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and unless its policy is changed by the incentives it is offered or the warnings it receives, it will succeed.”

Moreover, if we undertook preliminary military moves — the construction of air fields, the aggregation of troops and aircraft, what makes us certain that the Iranians would sit still for it? “‘We never “red-celled” the enemy in this exercise’ (that is, let him have the first move) [one participant warned]. ‘What if they try to pre-empt us? What if we threaten them and the next day we find mines in Baltimore Harbor and the Golden Gate, with a warning that there will be more?’”

Resolved: 1) Israel can’t handle the challenge. 2) The U.S. can’t abjure military action — there must be the threat that we will act. 3) Gaining time does not necessarily enhance our leverage.

So? What happens is going to depend on a quick judgment by the President of the United States.

What we can learn from Iraq is that he needs to be counseled on the consequences of alternative actions. He needs to avoid such as what we are contending with in Iraq.

[Zaelath]

Let a country that is ruled by emotion (read "not logic") have nuclear capabilities?

If that wasn't so sad, I'd be laughing uncontrollably.

I hear that laughing uncontrollably is a sign of mental instability. So I believe that is exactly what you are doing.

Go and read some of the outlandish statements made by the Iranian government during the Iraq / Iran war. Read that it is a commonly held belief that to die for their religion is a great thing. Go and read what they feel towards Israel as a nation. Then come back and tell me this is a rational government that would show restraint.

Perhaps I should have said a country that has a propensity towards religious fanaticism.

But in your world I suppose another country with nukes is a good fucking thing?

Shaddap you drooling idiot.

Atokal, go ahead and read the parallels between this intelligence, and the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war.

I'm not promoting nuclear proliferation, I'm saying the US should have more to go on than intelligence delivered by the people with the most to gain from the removal of the current government, again.

The humour in your statement derives from the simple fact that the US citizens rush to war in Afghanistan was so emotionally motivated, they not only approved that, but gave Bush carte blanche to delcare war on anyone he saw fit without the usual "checks and balances" that the US is so proud of.

Fuck it, what's the point in explaining any reasoning to a bigoted, myopic, self-righteous, shitheel anyway.

[Voronwë]

Interesting post Brotha. I know Fallows had some pretty interesting pre-war takes on Iraq that turned out to be correct. I'll have to check that out.

[masteen]

Iran: Growing middle class, shrinking fundamentalism
USA: Shrinking middle class, growing fundamentalism

Food for thought there.

[Dregor Thule]

[Atokal]

Atokal, you obviously being an expert on the Persian people, know that over the last 10 or more years, Iran has seen a vast expansion in their middle class, and a growing trend towards empowering a secular government. A couple of years ago, the tide swung back towards the religious fundamentalists who seeing their power as increasingly vulnerable, removed a substantial number of political candidates from the parliamentary elections.

Certainly there are a large number of poeple in Iran who are manipulated by religiously toned propaganda, but that problem is not unique to Iran - or to our time for that matter. That is basicly the common thread in human society since just about forever.

I agree Voro, for the most part countries that have nuclear capabilities have demonstrated restraint for one reason or another. Iran, has demonstrated in recent times the instability of the region. While being no expert on the persian people I still submit that they are far more susceptable to religious fanaticism than most other peoples.

That being said I still stand behind my comment that the UN needs to stop any other countries from developing a nuclear arsenal.

[noel]

Let a country that is ruled by emotion (read "not logic") have nuclear capabilities? They are a mercurial people, not prone to restraint.

I swear to God that when I read that, I thought you were talking about Israel.

[Atokal]

Let a country that is ruled by emotion (read "not logic") have nuclear capabilities? They are a mercurial people, not prone to restraint.

I swear to God that when I read that, I thought you were talking about Israel.

Israel is held in check by the USA.

[Aabidano]

I still submit that they are far more susceptable to religious fanaticism than most other peoples.

Knowing quite a few in the states, and having worked over there I'd disagree. The people susceptable to fanaticism\extremeism over there aren't any different than those in the US or any other part of the world. It just takes a different direction.

These are people that feel they're downtrodden and have no hope of bettering themselves in any other fashion. Or just plain bored and feeling useless, like many college graduates in Saudi that can't get a job with their masters degree in Islamic studies. In those situations people are going to do something they feel will better the situation, it's not required to be logical.

[Lohrno]

Israel is held in check by the USA.

That's about like saying North Korea or Cuba is held in check by the USSR.

No, I mean do you have any idea how retarded that statement is?

-=Lohrno

[Atokal]

Israel is held in check by the USA.

That's about like saying North Korea or Cuba is held in check by the USSR.

No, I mean do you have any idea how retarded that statement is?

-=Lohrno

You really believe that Israel farts without permission?
BTW the USSR does not exist anymore genius.

[Lohrno]

You really believe that Israel farts without permission?
BTW the USSR does not exist anymore genius.

It's called an example. Use a little imagination (you know, when you make pictures in your head...) and go back 50 years. The point was that Israel is 100% backed by the US and would not even exist if we didn't support them. The USSR certainly did help NK albeit indrectly. And they did help Cuba directly. They were not a check or balance. They did not stop NK from trying to take the peninsula.

So I'll make the paralell directly for you. We are not stopping or going to stop Israel from doing anything.

And since they have nukes they pretty much can act without reprocussions.

But fine, even if we assume you are right and they are our frickin puppets. That would make us directly responsible for the attrocities committed by Israel (not excusing palestinian suicide bombers either, but...), as well as not brokering peace in the past oh 20 years at least or so.

So you have to choose. Either we're directly responsible for the whole Israel - Palestine thing, or you're wrong, we don't control them.

-=Lohrno

[Winnow]

apparently the White House thought we were going to war with Iran in the mid 90s for a period of time, after they sponsored Hezbollah strikes against our bases in Saudi Arabia.

This is a potentially bad situation though, because the farther along Tehran gets with Nukes, the more likely Isreal is to go ahead and take that reactor out. That could obviously set a pile of dominoes going. They certainly wouldnt have to worry about the airspace on the way to iran, with an ally controlling Iraq.

Voro has a good grip on the situation.

These announcements by Powell are just a precursor to Israel taking out the Iranian Nuclear Reactor. There's no chance that power plant is going to be around much longer. By hyping it up now, there should be less of an uproar when the Israelis do their thing and take it out.

The point about not being able to leave Iran in a dominant position while Iraq flounders around trying to rebuild is also valid in this thread. I don't see any way we can leave Iraq as weak as it is now without Iran steamrolling them or at least trying to assume political control.

Iran and Syria are on tap for 2005.

[Lohrno]

Iran and Syria are on tap for 2005.

Awesome! I'm excited!

-=Lohrno

[Atokal]

You really believe that Israel farts without permission?
BTW the USSR does not exist anymore genius.

It's called an example. Use a little imagination (you know, when you make pictures in your head...) and go back 50 years. The point was that Israel is 100% backed by the US and would not even exist if we didn't support them. The USSR certainly did help NK albeit indrectly. And they did help Cuba directly. They were not a check or balance. They did not stop NK from trying to take the peninsula.

So I'll make the paralell directly for you. We are not stopping or going to stop Israel from doing anything.

And since they have nukes they pretty much can act without reprocussions.

But fine, even if we assume you are right and they are our frickin puppets. That would make us directly responsible for the attrocities committed by Israel (not excusing palestinian suicide bombers either, but...), as well as not brokering peace in the past oh 20 years at least or so.

So you have to choose. Either we're directly responsible for the whole Israel - Palestine thing, or you're wrong, we don't control them.

-=Lohrno

Hrmm, Israel has nukes and can act pretty much autonomously from the USA. This is your hypothesis I assume.

If that were the case, they would have crushed the Palestinians by now, if any of the other Arab nations rose up against them they would have nuked them if that were necessary. Fact Israel IS backed by the USA, the US has allowed certain actions by Israel in order to keep their only ally in the area pacified. Why on earth do you think the US is so involved in brokering a peace between Palestine and Israel. Because it all has to be approved by the US or Israel will lose their only salvation.

Further proof if you need it.

If the US had a hands off policy regarding Israel then you would have seen a massive assault by the Israeli military during Desert Storm when Iraq sent SCUDS into Israel. If you recall at that time Bush Senior asked Israel not to respond. Guess what, Israel did not respond.

[Nick]

Toker, I don't know I am even wasting my time but you are so wrong about Israel being held in check by the USA it really is not funny.

Really man, I am actually not being personal with the attacks here but you NEED to check the reality of the situation.

We can see you are capable of coherent literacy but what you are saying regarding Israel, and also the laughable comment about Iran really makes you look stupid.

I can guarantee if you read and checked up your history you will see how wrong you are.

[noel]

If the US had a hands off policy regarding Israel then you would have seen a massive assault by the Israeli military during Desert Storm when Iraq sent SCUDS into Israel. If you recall at that time Bush Senior asked Israel not to respond. Guess what, Israel did not respond.

Minor point of contention. They did in fact respond, though not overtly. There were numerous reports of Mosaad agents, and other Israeli special forces conducting operations within the theater of combat as retribution for the SCUDs. I don't have the time to dig up linkage, but I'll try to find it later on.

[Hesten]

Let a country that is ruled by emotion (read "not logic") have nuclear capabilities? They are a mercurial people, not prone to restraint.

I swear to God that when I read that, I thought you were talking about Israel.

I thought it was the US he was talking about. Pretty fitting decription ATM.

[Lohrno]

Hrmm, Israel has nukes and can act pretty much autonomously from the USA. This is your hypothesis I assume.

If that were the case, they would have crushed the Palestinians by now, if any of the other Arab nations rose up against them they would have nuked them if that were necessary.

Israel would have had to nuke the whole region, and that would definitelty not be popular. Iran right now has nukes, so right now if anyone is keeping them in check nulclearly it's them. The other nations around them also keep them in check as far as any other concerns go. As far as the US is concerned, Israel could probably take over Iraq and we would not care.

-=Lohrno

[noel]

Let a country that is ruled by emotion (read "not logic") have nuclear capabilities? They are a mercurial people, not prone to restraint.

I swear to God that when I read that, I thought you were talking about Israel.

I thought it was the US he was talking about. Pretty fitting decription ATM.

If the US showed zero restraint, the world would be completely and utterly fucked in way that neither you or I can imagine.

The US's problem isn't restraint. It's horrible leadership/foreign policy.

[Nick]

It's more the emotion / logic comedy I see the irony in.

[Voronwë]

a representative of the Israeli government was just interviewed about this on Wolf Blitzer Reports. He basically said a few things. (Iran was asked, but refused to send anybody to be interviewed).

1. we know they have a nuclear weapons program.
2. Israel cannot permit them to have these weapons (all of Israel's economic infrastructure is in a 20 mile wide by 60 mile north area, so they are very vulnerable to this sort of thing).
3. In two years there will be a point of no return for Iran.
4. He says Israel has no plans to preemptively attack Iran, but as time passes and Europe and hte International COmmunity is complacent, Israel is pushed into a corner.

[Rekaar.]

Israel simply will not allow their mortal enemies to possess these weapons and they'll do whatever it takes to ensure their own survival. I can't say I blame them.

[Kelshara]

heh I find it hillarious how you back one country for getting nuclear weapons (Israel) yet scream like kids when another is trying to do it (Iran). Oh wait, I forgot.. the US has been Israel's lapdogs for a while now.

[noel]

heh I find it hillarious how you back one country for getting nuclear weapons (Israel) yet scream like kids when another is trying to do it (Iran). Oh wait, I forgot.. the US has been Israel's lapdogs for a while now.

Well the US did give Israel their nukes.

For myself, I think we should ask for them back, and tell Israel to go fuck themselves. Then I think we should enact a foreign policy that would promote a world where Iran doesn't feel like they need nukes.

[Brotha]

heh I find it hillarious how you back one country for getting nuclear weapons (Israel) yet scream like kids when another is trying to do it (Iran). Oh wait, I forgot.. the US has been Israel's lapdogs for a while now.

Maybe it's because Iran hates us, sponsors terrorism, is unstable, and ruled by religious fanatics? Just a thought...

Israel NEEDS nukes. Just about every country around them wants them wiped off the map...them having nukes is a deterrent, plain and simple. Israel doesn't have them to blackmail or threaten anyone or for any aggressive purposes- that can hardly be said for Iran or N. Korea.