anyone still believe Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by kmax87
Is there anyone who believes that they(the Israeli's) would not exercise more restraint in using that weapon if the need arose?. In terms of likelyhood, which country is more likely to get carried away(Iran or Israel) and let the radiation envelop the region?

Iran gets my vote as being nutty enough to use a nuke, or let one slip out of their hands into a group that would.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Iran gets my vote as being nutty enough to use a nuke, or let one slip out of their hands into a group that would.

Israel is still in a lengthly war. Iran isn't.
Israel is nutty enough not wanting peace. Iran is.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Israel is still in a lengthly war. Iran isn't.
Israel is nutty enough not wanting peace. Iran is.

Iran is run by a beady-eyed Down Syndrome looking freak and a bunch of nutty mullahs.

I hadn't realised that we had to choose one country - Israel or Iran - to condemn for illegally developing and holding nuclear weapons. Is there a finite supply of opprobrium all of a sudden?

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Iran gets my vote as being nutty enough to use a nuke...

I know of one country alone that is "nutty" enough to do that.

Originally posted by sh76
It's nice to have the luxury of being able to make benefit of the doubt dubious assumptions about crazed religious fundamentalist leaders. Unfortunately, some people don't have the luxury of being able to make those kinds of assumptions... not when their lives are on the line.

last time the US interfered with iran it ended up in s**t, but if you want to ignore the lessons of history, its your choice.

Originally posted by generalissimo
last time the US interfered with iran it ended up in s**t, but if you want to ignore the lessons of history, its your choice.

Tell me generalissimo, if there was a known murderer who had frequently and publicly proclaimed his hatred of you, would it be any of your business whether he was allowed to own a machine gun?

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Tell me generalissimo, if there was a known murderer who had frequently and publicly proclaimed his hatred of you, would it be any of your business whether he was allowed to own a machine gun?

I wouldn't blame him (this known murderer) if I was also known to be a thief to the extent of stealing my neighbor's house, and then claiming it was mine all along and that I don't even need to pay him (the unfortunate neighbor) compensation.

but seriously, what do you propose? are you saying the US should interfere again, despite the history in the region?

Originally posted by generalissimo
I wouldn't blame him (this known murderer) if I was also known to be a thief to the extent of stealing my neighbor's house, and then claiming it was mine all along and that I don't even need to pay him (the unfortunate neighbor) compensation.

but seriously, what do you propose? are you saying the US should interfere again, despite the history in the region?

The US should stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, whether or not they (or you) think we are thieves.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
The US should stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, whether or not they (or you) think we are thieves.

why? is the US the world's policeman?

as for the "thief", I was actually referring to Israel.

Originally posted by DrKF
I hadn't realised that we had to choose one country - Israel or Iran - to condemn for illegally developing and holding nuclear weapons. Is there a finite supply of opprobrium all of a sudden?

We should treat these two contries by the same rules, that's all I want.

Israel have nukes, then we have to let Iran to have theirs too.
...or...
If we deny Iran to have nukes, then Israel should get rid of theirs too.

I prefer the second alternative.

Originally posted by generalissimo
why? is the US the world's policeman?

No. Iran should be stopped from getting nuclear weapons because Iran might use them against Israel, or provide them to terrorists to use against Israel, the U.S., or other Western countries. Or do you think these scenarios are impossible?

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
No. Iran should be stopped from getting nuclear weapons because Iran might use them against Israel, or provide them to terrorists to use against Israel, the U.S., or other Western countries. Or do you think these scenarios are impossible?

Not at all. But why does Israel have nuclear weapons?

Put another way, I think Israel possessing nuclear weapons is destabalising for the region and illegal under national law and for good reason. There is no doubt in my mind that Iran ought to be stopped from achieving a nuclear capacity. Besides the disinegenuity of 'facts on the ground', and with the stability of the region and the wider world at stake, ought Israel to have that capacity?

There are a number of ways to go on this issue, and all are partisan. I find myself in the non-proliferation camp, and would like to think that I am trying to look beyond the dualism that infects almost all discussion of the fertile crescent. At the moment, what I'd like to be a middle ground has demands with regards to nuclear bloody weapons that insist upon a level of equality that I'd be keen to hear others' views upon...

Interference in the form of bombing the Iranian reactors (if that's even feasible) depends on what you believe Iranian motives are. The way I see it, there are (more or less) 5 possibilities:

1) Iran is being truthful and is really not seeking to develop nuclear weapons

2) Iran is developing nuclear weapons because they want to level the diplomatic playing field with the United States, Israel and the West, but they certainly don't intent to use them.

3) Iran intends to use its nukes to bully Israel into dissolving or making massive concessions and/or to do the same to western countries

4) Iran doesn't intent to use them, but will sell them off to terrorist groups (or allow terrorist access in one form or another) who can use them against western or Israeli targets.

5) Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs want the bombs so that they can immediately nuke Tel Avi and New York and go soaring straight to Heaven and claim their 72 virgins.

If 5, then Iran must be stopped at all costs, including air/ground invasion. I have trouble imagining anyone would even argue with that.

If 4, basically the same applies.

If 2 or 1, then there is no urgent need to go in or bomb the reactors from the air.

If 3, it's a closer call; but I still would say that an invasion or attack is probably not justified.

You who blithely rest in your armchair and scoff at any necessity or justification for stopping Iran assume 1 or (more likely) 2. Most of you have the luxury of doing that. Fundamentally, you don't care whether New York or Tel Aviv gets nuked, Sure, you'd rather it not happen, but you're plenty willing to gamble other people's blood for the substantial chance at peace.

I too, hope that 1 or 2 is correct.

I am deathly afraid that 5 is a possibility. It sounds so horrible that you dismiss it out of hand. But, if you take MA's words at face value, I don't see how you can dismiss the possibility.

I think that 4 is a substantial possibility, though still probably less likely than not.

I think 3 is more likely than not.

Would I go in and bomb the reactor if there was no other way to stop Iran from developing nukes? Gee, I don't know. It would be the most critical cost-benefit-risk analyses in the history of the World. I wouldn't want to have to make the decision.