Iran Nuclear Situation (Recent SCARY Developments NSR)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

Iran isn't Switzerland. They're stupidly playing fast and loose with Iraq's northern border as we speak. playing right into Bush's hands. hopefully bush and Rummy are "dumb/crazy" enough to do something about it. sadly, no one else will do anything. shrug.

---

Oh, you mean that border arbitrarily created by the Brits? What are you talking about, btw - they haven't invaded Iraq. What's happening up there is a migration of Kurds, who see themselves (rightfully, IMHO) as neither Iraqi or Iranian. That border is loose because all parties want it that way. We're as culpable as the Iranians in that respect...

And hoping we bomb some more innocents just because we can is just disgusting. Fuck you and those who think like you.

The US had a pipeline of weapons into Afganistan within 10 days of the Soviet invasion.The Bin Laden Family has had very close ties with the US for a very long time.It's not a great leap to think that the Admin would use conduits that those know to help with the process.

If we hardly knew who he was, why did Reagan admin personel mention him on public record.Even this has been up for speculation.We all have our opinions, & that's just what they are. You've got your facts to support your conclusions,others have theirs.

Astropax - Right you are!

--------

I hope there is some way to keep the Iranians from gaining a nukeshort of bombing them. Right now the only thing I see is
1. Israelis do the job so we don't have to... still crappy
2. Miracle

Remember the Iranians are not starving like the North Koreans so they can't pretend to take a payoff while still enriching. They's rich biatch!

What is there for diplomatic leverage? We don't have anything they want that we won't end up giving them anyway in exchange for oil. With Russia and China on their side the UN is rather impotent to impose sanctions...

Sorry for playing the unpatriotic American expat on this one but...

"If Iran, North Korea, or Sudan want to develop nuclear weapons, what gives u.s. the right to say we can and they can't?"

This is the question that's always on my mind when I read the developing events. Yeah sure those places are full of nasties. I'd definitely sleep easier if they didn't have nuclear weapons. But how can we as a country say "you can't!" at the same time we continue to enhance and develop our own nuclear weapons programs? When the USA continues to maintain the largest nuclear missle arsenal in the world?

Many nations consider the US a threat to their security and want to develop nuclear weapons as a deterent towards that threat. That sucks ass dude. I'm not sure the solution. But it seems like justifying an invasion of Iran on these grounds logically would justify an invasion of the United States on the same grounds. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbirtle

Sorry for playing the unpatriotic American expat on this one but...

"If Iran, North Korea, or Sudan want to develop nuclear weapons, what gives u.s. the right to say we can and they can't?"

This is the question that's always on my mind when I read the developing events. Yeah sure those places are full of nasties. I'd definitely sleep easier if they didn't have nuclear weapons. But how can we as a country say "you can't!" at the same time we continue to enhance and develop our own nuclear weapons programs? When the USA continues to maintain the largest nuclear missle arsenal in the world?

Many nations consider the US a threat to their security and want to develop nuclear weapons as a deterent towards that threat. That sucks ass dude. I'm not sure the solution. But it seems like justifying an invasion of Iran on these grounds logically would justify an invasion of the United States on the same grounds. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work.

---

Everybody in the world should be packing a gun too, right? I mean fair is fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

Oh, you mean that border arbitrarily created by the Brits? What are you talking about, btw - they haven't invaded Iraq. What's happening up there is a migration of Kurds, who see themselves (rightfully, IMHO) as neither Iraqi or Iranian. That border is loose because all parties want it that way. We're as culpable as the Iranians in that respect...

And hoping we bomb some more innocents just because we can is just disgusting. Fuck you and those who think like you.

---

watch your heart rate tubby. I didn't say we should bomb innocents. I said we could if need be. additionally, all I would have us do is disable their nuclear capability. unless their nuke reactors are under tehran. I'm pretty sure we're not going to be hitting any "innocents".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbirtle

"If Iran, North Korea, or Sudan want to develop nuclear weapons, what gives u.s. the right to say we can and they can't?"

---

Are you really that unsuspecting?

First of all, North Korea already has nukes:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...dprk-nukes.htm

And, Ayatollah, Don’t Khomeini Closer:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_iran.html

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbirtle

"If Iran, North Korea, or Sudan want to develop nuclear weapons, what gives u.s. the right to say we can and they can't?"

---

Because we are a freedom loving Democracy and they are all brutal totalitarian dictatorships. Nevermind that they want ill of us too. That gives us plenty of right. Why is that so hard to understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbirtle

Many nations consider the US a threat to their security and want to develop nuclear weapons as a deterent towards that threat.

---

Totalitarian societies, governments and ideologies are always threatened by freedom and Democracy. Whether we have nukes or not is beside the point.

We need to kick their asses before it is too late. (just kidding...sort of...well not really)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbirtle

Sorry for playing the unpatriotic American expat on this one but...

"If Iran, North Korea, or Sudan want to develop nuclear weapons, what gives u.s. the right to say we can and they can't?"

This is the question that's always on my mind when I read the developing events. Yeah sure those places are full of nasties. I'd definitely sleep easier if they didn't have nuclear weapons. But how can we as a country say "you can't!" at the same time we continue to enhance and develop our own nuclear weapons programs? When the USA continues to maintain the largest nuclear missle arsenal in the world?

Many nations consider the US a threat to their security and want to develop nuclear weapons as a deterent towards that threat. That sucks ass dude. I'm not sure the solution. But it seems like justifying an invasion of Iran on these grounds logically would justify an invasion of the United States on the same grounds. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work.

---

1. There is no international constitution with a second ammendment that says : None shall infringe on a crackpot despot's right to bear nuclear arms.
2. They signed an agreement, the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
3. Don't see Russia getting rid of *all*their nukes... you think we should?
4. The NATO/UN/USA are big and gnarly enough to say "No no... you can't play with that toy, only for the big boys." That is the way it is. National security and international relations isn't a game of fairness and hippy love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisArray

Because we are a freedom loving Democracy and they are all brutal totalitarian dictatorships. Nevermind that they want ill of us too. That gives us plenty of right. Why is that so hard to understand?

---

Yeah these nations that continue to develop new nuclear bombs in defiance of international wishes, continue to build and upgrade nuclear weapons, start wars in faraway lands, have a policy to torture people, even threaten to USE those bombs as a first offensive strike - hell even those that ACTUALLY USED THEM... need some serious ass whooping.

I'd like to see my country *at least* say "ok we're going to stop developing new nuclear bomb technologies." And maybe give up torture. And maybe wait a bit after the disaster in Iraq.

Then we'd have a lot better right to argue that other countries do the same. As it is now, our policy seems to be "if we like you (Pakistan, India, Israel) then you can have your bombs. Otherwise we're going to nuke you."

I'm not saying we shouldn't do all we can to prevent evil places like Iran and North Korea, I'm just saying let's recognize how hypocritical and self-rightous we're being here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbirtle

Then we'd have a lot better right to argue that other countries do the same. As it is now, our policy seems to be "if we like you (Pakistan, India, Israel) then you can have your bombs. Otherwise we're going to nuke you."

---

Who said anything about dropping THE BOMB on anyone?

So what is your solution? Allow Iran to arm themseves with nukes?

"Kooks with Nukes"? You like that idea? That's OK with you?

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Who said anything about dropping THE BOMB on anyone?

---

Bush? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

...one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites....

...The Pentagon consultant on the war on terror confirmed that some in the administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among defence department political appointees...

We've just GOT to clean up our act if we're going to continue leading the World Police force...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbirtle

Bush? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

...one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites....

...The Pentagon consultant on the war on terror confirmed that some in the administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among defence department political appointees...

We've just GOT to clean up our act if we're going to continue leading the World Police force...

---

you're right, we shouldn't have any contingency plans. because the mullahs are going to kowtow to the the western european diplomats just in time for launch capability. hell, I'd be really surprised if they didn't already have the capability. was there an inteligence operation in the world that predicted india? or pakistan for that matter. but you're right who are we to tell people that have admittedly funded terrorism for decades whether or not they can have nukes. keep reading le monde birtle. when the missiles fly, don't come crying to the US. we might not be morally righteous enough to defend such an upstanding country as France.:rolleyes2

I heard French people do nothing but smoke cigarettes and have gay sex with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbirtle

We've just GOT to clean up our act if we're going to continue leading the World Police force...

---

Yeah, I know what you mean. We are the real bad guys....because we "torture" by allowing Military Working Dogs to actually snarl and growl at prisoners, or force prisoners to lie around on cold and wet floors.

Maybe we really should start conducting ourselves more like your good guys, like beheading the prisoners, or hanging them to death off of bridges! Of course, in all fairness, we would also have to video tape it all, and provide the footage to Aljazeera

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

you're right, we shouldn't have any contingency plans. because the mullahs are going to kowtow to the the western european diplomats just in time for launch capability. hell, I'd be really surprised if they didn't already have the capability. was there an inteligence operation in the world that predicted india? or pakistan for that matter. but you're right who are we to tell people that have admittedly funded terrorism for decades whether or not they can have nukes. keep reading le monde birtle. when the missiles fly, don't come crying to the US. we might not be morally righteous enough to defend such an upstanding country as France.:rolleyes2

---

Iran isn't aiming to annihilate itself by using a nuclear warhead unprovoked. I've already explained why in this thread, but if you insist on clinging onto wild projections which are based solely on the information you have gained from talk radio and Fox, be my guest, but you sound like an idiot. It's a lot more complicated than "they want the bomb to destroy our freedoms."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbirtle

Bush? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

---

That's not "The Bomb".

Those are small tactical nukes. You implied strategic nukes, aka "city busters".

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbirtle

I'm just saying let's recognize how hypocritical and self-rightous we're being here.

---

I'm going to fuck your wife in front of you. while she's moaning and groaning like a stuck pig, you'll be telling yourself-'well, i fuck her too, i can see this guys point of view'.........It's no wonder you Frenchies are constantly getting your dumb asses handed to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

I'm going to fuck your wife in front of you. while she's moaning and groaning like a stuck pig, you'll be telling yourself-'well, i fuck her too, i can see this guys point of view'.........It's no wonder you Frenchies are constantly getting your dumb asses handed to you.

---

Too funny!!

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

It's a lot more complicated than "they want the bomb to destroy our freedoms."

---

Your are right, indeed!

Iran wants nukes so they can project power...islamist power...islamic fundementalism...which just happens to be in direct conflict with western civilization in general.

Islam has bloody borders. Why is that?

http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html

-Astro

Hey guys, maybe if we just BURY OUR HEADS IN SAND, the problem will go away!

actually, if we bury our head in the sand regarding iran, the problem might just go away since it would take legitimacy away from a very unpopular government. Our saber rattliong is playing right into their hands. But how could I expect something such as nuanced foreign policy to penetrate the thick skulls of neocons??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

bury our head in the sand regarding iran

---

I wonder how many cut-off heads are already buried under the desert sands of Iran?

-Astro

Astropax the B61 Mod11 even at the lowest yield of maybe 10kT (whether it is a DIY bomb is debated I guess, maybe it is a 340kT yield) is still gonna make a nasty ass hole in the ground. We aren't talkign about penetration to a depth that can fully contain an explosion. It's a really-kill-that-really-hard-target-any-means weapon quickly deployable from strike aircraft instead using a (relatively messier) megaton range ground burst (requiring a B2 or B52).

I hope they don't ever use a nuke unless they have no other choice and it *reallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreally* needs to happen. Nothing wrong with making contingencies plans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbirtle

I'd like to see my country *at least* say "ok we're going to stop developing new nuclear bomb technologies." And maybe give up torture. And maybe wait a bit after the disaster in Iraq.

Then we'd have a lot better right to argue that other countries do the same. As it is now, our policy seems to be "if we like you (Pakistan, India, Israel) then you can have your bombs. Otherwise we're going to nuke you."

I'm not saying we shouldn't do all we can to prevent evil places like Iran and North Korea, I'm just saying let's recognize how hypocritical and self-rightous we're being here.

---

Who cares if we are being hypocrites. I'd rather us not be. We are doing bad things along with the good.

As much as you (and I) hate the way this administration runs things it doesn't mean that the USA should pack up and sit on it's thumbs until we get a different leadership because we are naughty. The world is still happening around us and we still have to get shit done whether you like the assholes in charge or not. We have to look out for ourselves.

For the last time, foreign policy is not a feelgood hippy love thing especially when dealing with nasty regimes. Try that and you'll get pwn3d

America has its faults for sure, but you would faint at what Iran does now, much less with a nuke, much less what they would do with the same power we have. We still have to get it done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroPax

I wonder how many cut-off heads are already buried under the desert sands of Iran?

-Astro

---

What, you want to go fight a war based on humanitarian concerns? That's a laughable way to direct a nation's foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

actually, if we bury our head in the sand regarding iran, the problem might just go away since it would take legitimacy away from a very unpopular government. Our saber rattliong is playing right into their hands. But how could I expect something such as nuanced foreign policy to penetrate the thick skulls of neocons??

---

Come on man. I see where your comming from, tone down the GW rhetoric, go on hiatus from policing the world. A good point, but the rest of the world is still turning in the meantime. And Iran does not give a shit what GW does, or what punishment you think we all deserve for our sins in Iraq, they want a bomb. And maybe that bomb is not a threat to us now, but sooner or later the long dong xx missile will be.

The Iraq war definetly emboldened Iran into finalizing their nuclear ambitions. Big time backfire for GW. But we cannot just quit and go point fingers in the locker room. I do not care who is the white house now, i am looking ahead.

Nation building aside, alot of people after 911 were willing to remove Saddam for the same threat, that we know. Clearly Iraq is a disaster and it wil be GW's legacy, but lets not give up entirely because we want to rake GW over the coals. That would be an entirly new and equally poor of a decision.

I want sanctions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Iran isn't aiming to annihilate itself by using a nuclear warhead unprovoked ... It's a lot more complicated than "they want the bomb to destroy our freedoms." "

---

No, but they sure would like to wipe Israel off the map, not to mention us.

Oh, almost forgot that death to America stuff and being the no.1 state sponsor of terror groups in world. 'Misplace' a few warheads here or there to the hands of terrorists and there goes L.A., San Fransisco, New York and Chicago all in one day.

Nothing at all to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisArray

No, but they sure would like to wipe Israel off the map, not to mention us.

Oh, almost forgot that death to America stuff and being the no.1 state sponsor of terror groups in world. 'Misplace' a few warheads here or there to the hands of terrorists and there goes L.A., San Fransisco, New York and Chicago all in one day.

Nothing at all to worry about.

---

Since you obviously can't think past an "either they nuke us or we nuke them mentality," I'm not even going to waste my time explaining the entire situation to you, it's pointless.

Cono- The neo-con line was directed at DisArray and Astro, as their use of fallacious logic in their arguments is nauseating.

Since when did I say we deserve punishment for our sins in Iraq? The goals at the outset of the mission were admirable, and I admit, the vision laid out by the neoconservatives would have been the best possible outcome for the US. Unfortunately they suffered from the same blindness that all idealists suffer, and now we will have to pay the price with respect to Iran. Does this make me happy? GOD NO!! I would love to have the military option on the table for Iran.

But in this case, we are at the mercy of a crippled foreign policy apparatus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

Since you obviously can't think past an "either they nuke us or we nuke them mentality," I'm not even going to waste my time explaining the entire situation to you, it's pointless.

---

I have never said that we should 'nuke' Iran, so don't put words in my mouth, and stop thinking that you are somehow above everybody else in this debate because you aren't. That is what is really annoying. If you want to know why so many people hate Massachusetts Liberals, that is it.
Simply put, I don't think we should cripple ourselves diplomatically by taking military options off the table, because of Iraq or any other reason. That is different than wanting to 'nuke' Iran.
You however have stated that if we just ignore the problem it will go away. That seems very dangerous to me. Willfull ignorance, like you advocate, isn't a strategy; its a recipe for disaster.

And your smarmy "you're a french idiot for even thinking that" replies to everyone on this board are what exactly? endearing?

And no, I don't think I'm above everyone in this thread. I respect the opinions of people like Cono Este, Common Law and even Blurred Elevens at points (as well as many others but I really don't feel like listing them all here) because they add something to the conversation beyond what they hear on the radio. I don't think that you've made one positive comment in a thread yet. So till you do, I will regard you as an ass, and yes, inferior.

Also, I've never advocated doing nothing, I was just stating that it MAY be more desirable than military action. More often than not the solution we create is less desirable to the solution that would present itself if cooler heads prevail.

i asked my poly-sci teacher about the situation today, and he told me that he can guess at what is going on, but there are so many factors in play in this situation that the average person can specualte and understand it on a broad spectrum, but will have no chance of 100% knowing everything involved with the situation. Therefore, i will agree with massliberal in saying that it is the combination of everyone's imput adn knowledge that will give a big picture, and since 99% of us don't know enough to really create an truly informed opinon, we shouldn't flame at each other. I may not agree with what you say, but i will defend your right to say it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

And your smarmy "you're a french idiot for even thinking that" replies to everyone on this board are what exactly? endearing?

---

There you go again, putting words in my mouth that aren't mine. Why don't you actually read my posts before you say shit like that. I've never claimed to be a nice guy BTW. Oh and thanks for admitting that you feel superior to anyone's opinion who you don't agree with. At least you are honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

1. There is no international constitution with a second ammendment that says : None shall infringe on a crackpot despot's right to bear nuclear arms.

---

So you're armed to the teeth and hate your neighbor but you prevent your neighbor from buying a guy by shooting him when he tries... But as a guy on the armed to the teeth side afraid of my crazy neighbor, I can agree with this argument. I'm just saying the people of Iran probably don't, and if we're going with that then we need to come out and say it instead of trying to go through the UN. Because in the scheme of blind international judgement, they haven't done anything wrong to build a weapon that a lot of other nations already have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

2. They signed an agreement, the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

---

I'm really surprised they don't just back out of it. If they did that, wouldn't the UN be forced legally to drop all their involvement? Since then it would be a militeristic dispute between a few member countries (US + Israel + Western Europe vs. Iran)? (Not a loaded question I'm actually curious and don't know the answer.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

3. Don't see Russia getting rid of *all*their nukes... you think we should?

---

No, we need to defend ourselves, so we can't get rid of all the guns.

But America's action abroad have been deplorable and alarming since 2001. Granted not all bad, but with our World Police force this corrupt and just do not trust u.s. to do a good job in Iran. WE are ~currently~ testing and building new types of nuclear bombs. WE are ~currently~ performing a massive upgrade of our Soviet-era nuclear weaponry. WE ~currently~ have more missles than anybody else combined and are promising to do nothing to reduce them. WE ~currently~ have a policy of torture (not growling dogs, rather stripping them naked, sexually humiliating them, then beating them to death), WE ~currently~ take people off the streets randomly that we suspect being baddies and put them in jail outside of any system of law - sometimes we make mistakes like the German guy you may have missed on FoxNEWS.

I want to see all that stuff STOP before I start trusting our country again as having moral superiority, or ability to pull off another war in the Middle East that will not end up like Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

...National security and international relations isn't a game of fairness and hippy love...

---

No, but there are situations where there is a clear course of action that would solve the problem (e.g. Bosnia, WWII) and then there's taking military action might solve a problem (Hussain, Taliban) but will spawn others that become worse in the long run (Iraq 2006, Pakistan).

I don't know if there IS a good solution. It seems like any technology, nuclear technology will mature and get easier to implement and 100, 200 years from now any country that wants it will be able to easily get it. That's some pretty scary stuff. But Iran's rich as fuck and it seems like sanctions won't work. I've seen a few news blurbs that warned military long distance strikes would not work either - it's too easy for them to build deeper and hide better. A full out invasion a la Iraq is just unthinkable for a lot of reasons.

What are you guys proposing to do about this situation? (Not a loaded question I'm actually curious and don't know the answer.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slim

I heard French people do nothing but smoke cigarettes and have gay sex with each other.

---

No they roll over and lose a lot of wars too.

I was with a German friend of mine and we were doing some good old French bashing the other day. "I mean look at when you guys invaded them," I said "they lasted like 5 days or something." We looked it up though and appearently they lasted 5 weeks from invasion to surrender. Tough bastards them Frenchies! :D

On another occasion this same friend says to me "it's really funny. we beat them in two wars in the last 100 years alone and they still like us better than they like you!"

All the British expats and tourists here, of course, never miss an opportunity to bash the yokals.

Of course, the French in Chamonix are none to happy of all of that. But meh, whatayagonnado.

I never said that I feel superior to people I don't agree with, I just feel superior to assholes like yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisArray

There you go again, putting words in my mouth that aren't mine. Why don't you actually read my posts before you say shit like that. I've never claimed to be a nice guy BTW. Oh and thanks for admitting that you feel superior to anyone's opinion who you don't agree with. At least you are honest.

---

Really?? You've never made generalizations that would cause others to think you're a complete ass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisArray

They say if you're not a liberal by the age of 20, then you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by the age of 30, you have no brain. The question is then- Why are liberals so stupid?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisArray

WalMart is a great American company. People who hate WallMart are a bunch stuck-up leftist wanna-be neo-communist bastards who hate capitalism and hate America. Everything they know about WallMart has probably been learned from their peers, by reading Chomsky or watching some propagandist neo-documentary style film. Nevermind that intellectually it is all a bunch of garbage. If they had a sale of Che Guevera tee-shirts at WallMart, I bet half of them would go there just to buy one. Hypocrisy.

---

If we bomb them unilaterally then they have the internationally accepted right to defend themselves - ala Kuwait and her allies circa 1991. If we do that then Iran has justification to bomb us back, whenever or however possible - we legitimize their response, maybe not in our eyes but in a huge chunk of the world's. That's what should be taken under consideration. Merely taking out a site or two will not end their nuclear program... this is no Iraq. Iran has a much higher standard of living/education/infrastructure level than anyone else in that part of the world.

It bears repeating - the only nuclear power to ever use a nuclear weapon as intended is the USA. Nobody expects to win a nuclear war. Iran's leaders will not commit suicide merely to wipe Israel off the map, because as soon as the missiles are in the air the Israelis will launch and it's done.

Imagine you had G. Gordon Liddy living next to you - armed to the teeth and scowling at you and your friends every time you played the music too loud. Then imagine him coming out and cleaning his guns on his porch every time you wash your car. You'd be a little worried too, and would likely arm yourself despite the fact that Liddy thinks he's right and you're wrong.

...and I'm still waiting to hear how we are the greatest free-est people ever on the planet. The Swiss are pretty fucking free, and they're certainly well armed. Look it up.

What bugs me most is that people hold nuclear anything as The Biggest Threat. When is an atomic bomb really any worse that the systematic carpetbombing of a city? People talk about the horrors of hiroshima but not Dresden. The same goes for nuclear power: 3 Mile Island was a national horror, and yet we allow hundreds of coal-burning plants to slowly poison us. Mostly contained nuclear meltdowns pose much less of a threat than the very real damage we're inflicting to the environment via fossil fuels.

Nukes are nice and all, and certainly more scary with missles. However, it'd be far easier to drive a truck into a major city with a warhead than to bother assemblying a missle fleet. Iran (or any other similar country) getting nuclear weapons doesn't significantly increase its abilities to wage war/terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MassLiberal

The used car salesman turned international political theorist?

Iran isn't aiming to annihilate itself by using a nuclear warhead unprovoked. I've already explained why in this thread, but if you insist on clinging onto wild projections which are based solely on the information you have gained from talk radio and Fox, be my guest, but you sound like an idiot. It's a lot more complicated than "they want the bomb to destroy our freedoms."

---

I'm sure they're not aiming to annihilate themselves by supporting terrorism either. however, that's exactly what's going to happen. Is it really that much of a stretch to imagine a fundamentalist islamic nation state practicing what it preaches? If you've got faith in their respect for human life, especially "infidel" lives, more power to you. How long do we stand by as a leader calls for the death of a nation that is one of our greatest allies?

again, their nukes aren't going to get to my doorstep.

I just thought the people whose doorsteps are in danger would give a rat's ass.

Mass, keep chugging Uncle Teddy's KoolAid. just make sure he's not driving you home. If you do, bring a life jacket.

Mr. Gyptian, I'm sure people get your point, even if you just post it once...