if they get a nuke it will be set off in israel. can i guarantee that? no but id put it at better than 70%.

they have been using state sponsored terrorism since the 70's. if the were even pseudo normal i wouldnt have an issue with them.

Libya is the textbook example of interventionism to stop a genocide, way more so than Kosovo which couldnt get international support or consensus and didnt have the regional support that the Libyan airstrikes had. It also didnt have the end game Libya had where a rebel force could be supported to oust the current regime then be replaced with some democratically elected replacement.

The odds are ridiculously low, like not even on a percentage scale.

Iran getting a nuke is bad firstly because other nations use it as an excuse to chase nuclear weapons which is especially terrible given their entire economies are based on a resource that is being depleted as we speak mixed with the powder keg of a wide gulf (no pun) between the haves and have nots.

Secondly the immediate problem with Iran being nuclear is that they become untouchable and then would project power more often shutting down the Straight of Hormuz or through proxy power arming militants much more openly as two obvious examples. Its in their interest to destabilise the area and that is extraordinarily bad for us in the west.

Basically the long story short is that Iran getting a nuke is bad for every reason but them using it, cos they just plain wont unless fully resigned to the widespread destruction of the country by Israel and its allies (America especially). Iran being a nuclear power has the potential through a realistic chain of events to cripple the entire world economy and topple power from the west towards the east with the Russia-China-Iran block being really dangerous to western interests.

phill i would agree if i thought those guys were halfway rational. but honestly i think they are crazy enough to give the thing to some nut and let him drive it to tel aviv.

i agree just having would cause problems, but a so would be a huge mideast war where they suck in syria and one unforeseen partner.

I don't think they are any worse than any other leaders. There are thousands of people in this country who don't believe in the holocaust. Labeling islamists as a danger is beyond ignorant. Israel wants to kill all of them too, but we are on their side. From their POV we are the evil murdering tyrants.

ok krmott you believe that if you want.

In my experience the more you look at Iran the more you realise its a huge shell game and their rationality is much higher than people give them credit for. If nothing else they certainly arent fanatics to a cause the same as Al Qaeda and they clearly do know when to back down out of survival and ultimately nuclear deterrence for them is exactly that, the ultimate way to ensure regime survival and its not surprising it has been stepped up since the green revolution when Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei came really close to being overthrown.

Of course the regime is really terrible and dont let anyone try and pretend otherwise, but to merely dismiss them as nutjobs and think the problem of nuclear arms there is that they might use it is missing a whole load of ways its a problem even if they dont use it - something Ron Paul entirely misses when he says Iran being nuclear isnt a problem for America.

i def think we cant let them get there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Let me know when Iran has killed 290 American civilians.

I don't speak for all libertarians, but I am against military intervention in overseas massacres because it is wrong to steal money to fund military interventions. If the military is responsible for offensive wars and the killing of thousands of innocent lives, why do you trust it do a good job in stopping massacres? People also like to ignore the fact that the govts of the world are responsible for poverty/deaths of millions of people through intervention in all aspects of economic activity.

your entire post does not even deserve a response.

your positioning itt is far to extreme. your posts are about a by-product of WW2, those activities had no basis for the UK then the US to enter the war. It also had no bearing on the moves to end the war. Its a nice card to play, framed for one sides want to go down a certain path.

There are 2 current nations that would launch a nuclear strike without concern or 2nd thought, they are Israel and Iran (if they had one). All the other players tend to use them as deterrent weapons. So while the new kids with a new toy( the Iranians) could become difficult, the older kids with their own toys ( the Israelis) are the current thugs on the playground.

You want to stop the playground fighting, the thugs need to get slapped around, maybe harder, than the new kids. Until you can see that direction, you are no better than those you claim are the problem.

Because he proved you so very wrong with 1 example out of hundreds?

no he didnt. yes the plane was shot down. did we target civilians on purpose no. we tried to contact that plane a bunch of times. the ship was involved in an active fire fight in a war zone and the plane took off from a joint use base. the pilot never responded or identified himself and it wound up being a tragic misidentification.

and its not 1 out of hundreds.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, terrorism has served the regime of the ayatollahs as a tool of both domestic and foreign policy. This policy was directed against Iranian citizens inside Iran, as well as against advocates of opposition views in exile. Iran's sponsorship of terrorism has bridged ideological gaps and political divides; Teheran has provided arms and training to such groups as the Gama'a al-Islamiyah, the Egyptian al-Jihad, and the Algerian G.I.A. Al-Qaida too, has benefited from Iranian support and expertise for more than a decade. More recently, this support has taken the form of free passage for al-Qaida activists seeking to establish a foothold in Lebanon. There are also signs that al-Qaida has sought the help of Iran in deepening it involvement in Palestinian terrorism against Israel.

Iran's support of Terrorism

Iran views terrorism as a legitimate means to further its ideological and strategic aims, including:

"Exporting the Revolution"

Assisting Islamic groups and organizations worldwide, especially in the Middle East

Furthering the destruction of Israel and attempting to sabotage the political process

Destabilizing the regimes of the more pragmatic Arab countries

Eliminating the Iranian regime's opposition.

What is terrorism? Does the USA do it?

The Daily Show: America's Freedom Packages

no we dont

This thread gets better and better

b

fyp

Only when we can annex their oil fields.

I present to you , the brainwashed public.

Lolwat, which part of what he said are you disagreeing with there?

I guess droning dozens of innocent civilians doesn't count as terrorism as long as one of two Al Qaeda operatives are killed, right? Terrorizing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis with night raids doesn't count as terrorism because we're obviously there to make their lives better.

If Iran provided small-arms support to insurgents fighting us in, say, Iraq, would they be supporting terrorism?

Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe, JUST maybe, Iran acts the way it does because of the way the US has acted in the past, oh I don't know, 60 years?

I digress though, the original intent of this topic wasn't to discuss invading Iran. I left a lot of questions for everyone in my earlier posts that I'd love to get answered.

no terrorism is the planned attack on noncombatants. buses malls planes schools etc. as i have mentioned the few times in other threads that collateral damage is a shame but the us tries to avoid it as much as possible.

info on iran http://www.higginsctc.org/terrorism/...dterrorism.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...ternational%29