Well, I have a very different perspective, which it not totally surprising. I am wondering how many of your opinions would differ if you had access to some of the proverbial "dirt" Iran has swept under its rug. I have a feeling, some would just discount it and maintain the "poor Iran" mentality despite the nefarious activities of Iranian government.

If anyone is familiar with my continued monologue about the goals of Islamic Fundamentalist/Extremist care to see why a Nuclear Iran, who purportedly supports terrorism, is bad for the world?

The vastly bigger issue no one really talks about is that if Iran gets a nuke, all the Sunni-dominated countries basically have to as well in response. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc. all with nukes is a bad situation for the world. Too many countries with unstable governments with nuclear weapons is not good for obvious reasons.

the real terrrrists are USA and Israel, no one is afraid of Iran because they mind their own ****ing business.

O'rly?
In Rebuilding Iraq’s Oil Industry, U.S. Subcontractors Hold Sway

Or did you really think that what they meant was the US gov was going to start taking over and pumping the oil fields?


If Iran responds after being attacked, this could draw us into a invasion/ground war.
Not really, it's highly theoretical. Tell me when the last time the nation of Iran launched a large scale attack on another nation?

You can't prove that they will use them anymore then you can prove they wont. Israel can easily nuke Iran off the map in response to any nuclear attack on Israel. There is little evidence the establishment in Iran i.e. the decision makers/the privileged themselves are suicidal. Now if president Ahmadinejad pulls a suicide attack during a UN security council meeting blowing himself up or something, then I think it might be credible to assume the rulers of Iran are suicidal and I would totally change my opinion, as such they haven't done anything like that, it's more reasonable to assume they are not suicidal.


As history has shown us, even fairly recently - It is human nature for countries like the US for example, to perceive a dire threat that just isn't real - like Vietnam with the perceived present danger of the domino communist theory that lead to our launching the war. Which in retrospect was basically totally not a real threat.

Also, Iran obtaining nukes would shift the geopolitical power in the middle east more in favor of Iran (along with it's eastern allies China/Russia, ect.) and at the expensive of US/nato/israel.

In fact i wouldn't be surprised that if Iran gets nukes the result may light a fire under Israel's ass to work out a two state solution with the Palestinians, whatever it takes.

When I left the Army circa 2006 there was discussion if Iran got the "bomb" Pakistan would then give Saudi Arabia the technology.

It doesn't make it so, military people can be a bit barmy. They advised President Kennedy to strike first and nuke the Russians over the Cuban missiles.

What can I say, free markets are prevailing in Iraq. Is this bad?




I think you have a misunderstanding of Iran's capabilities and their doctrine.

So, now you caveat attack with "large-scale"?

This is correct. Someone repeatedly threatens you by suggesting they are going to get a gun and end you. This person has friends who try to convince this person not to get a gun....and he placates his friends with words, yet he seen often looking at pawn shops. You call the police and they talk with him, yet his actions continue to indicate he might still be looking for a weapon. You have a legitimate fear of harm from this person. What do you do? How would you alleviate your fears of harm?

I do not like the logic of "we do not know so, let just wait to find out" as in some cases it's too late.





and how is this better?


Some would argue that just by the lack of concessions in the current diplomatic efforts.


So you need an act of war to respond in kind. Fair enough, I can understand this logic. I agree in most cases. However, when the act can cause irreversible and immeasurable harm to your countries interest, I'm not sure I can wait for that to happen before I respond.

I also disagree with the premise they think the same as we do, when clearly they have very different values that govern their actions. I do not think for a minute that Iran does not feel threatened and are guarded, but I also think they lack the understanding that their actions has significant impact on the rest of the world or if they do, do not fully grasp the image they have in the west. I'm not saying they are dumb, idiots or otherwise, just they have a different perspective based on different values and objectives.



I do not disagree with this but their are cases when the threat is real.

No withstanding my previous post, but how long do you think it will take Saudi Arabia to develop the bomb? Proliferation breeds proliferation, the worlds seeks balance. The balance in the middle east would be thrown out of whack. Now, I'm fully aware who the power brokers are and also fully aware of the interest they have in the region.

You are asserting that the US should not protect it's interest/influence in the region despite its national interest are, at least somewhat, tied to it and you say we should willingly concede this influence, willingly, to a country with no real bona fides on the Internationale stage. One, I might add, who has aided and abetted our enemy's.


What is annoying about this is, the repeated assertions of that the US meddling has hampered the middle east and somehow, a nefarious and subversive country like Iran can do better.

If US has no business in the Israel/Palestine conflict, I'm not sure what Persians are going to do, other than escalate the tension with another nuclear country in the mix.

So if Iran gets the bomb then Pakistan might give the tech to a terrorist state? Sounds like a good reason to attack Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, no?

This goes with out saying, however, this is not water cooler talk, these were respected analyst or at least ones I respected.

That's why we should be supporting the Irani proposal for a nuclear-free zone by putting pressure on Israel to get rid of their nukes.

I think you have a very over-simplified understanding of things. Nice dodge by the way!

Kind of hard to take serious when they are purportedly building their own nukes while asking for a nuke free zone in violation of other international agreements.

It's hard to take you seriously if you are arguing for non-proliferation and opposing a nuclear-free zone at the same time.

Cite please.

Actually, don't worry about it, I'm going to bed.

You say you support non-proliferation yet you support Israel's nukes. If it is otherwise speak now. You won't take yes for an answer from Iran so your further comments are unnecessary you have made your position quite clear.

Israel ex-Mossad chief claiming Iran is rational:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7401417n

I hope that Israel and Usa are seriously sanctioned if they attack Iran.

Looking forward to this interview as every other one I can find is in Hebrew. He's been pretty outspoken about it being a huge mistake to attack Iran. The only difference between his stance and the hawks is one of timing though. He's all for bombing them if it becomes the only option left.

Giving Israelis that part of the land was a big mistake. Israelis should be given land in USA. A lot of problems and a lot of lives would be saved that way.

That's not a difference of timing that's a difference of situation. I daresay it will be the only option if they start zapping other countries with nukes but that's not very likely.

The partition of Palestine was a big mistake. The people displaced after WW2 would have preferred to go to the US and countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia were quite empty so there was space for them there.

However we are where we are and a nuclear-free zone sounds like the safest option in that region.

I agree with you.

I meant that he's all for an airstrike on their nuke locals if all else fails. He's been highlighted in the media as being against an airstrike altogether. He has more faith in other methods like sabotage and subversion.

Cite please. Stop trying to assume something then pretend I said it.

Why? I'm not sure it is relevant. Of course I would like to see a nuclear free world, much less the Middle East. However, your contention that Israel, the US and anyone else should take Iran's proposal seriously while they are purportedly working towards a nuclear offensive capability is illogical.

I do not think you even know what my position is, considering your repeated insinuations about my opinion that you have no evidence to support, other than your assumptions.

I believe your understanding of Iran only scratches the surface when it comes to their rationale, motives, and intentions. Needless to say, you also have a surprisingly illogical disregard for Iran subversive and nefarious actions.

I can understand the counter-argument to attacking Iran and to some extent agree, where I have the problem is your side of the argument refuses to accept the potential danger Iran presents to the Middle East if it gets a nuke....or dare I say, you want them to get one, just because Israel has them.