Why can't Iran have nukes?

[Postman]

Because they might slip into the "wrong hands"?

Gimme a break.

Except for Musharraf, the rest of Pakistan is just as "anti-American" as the rest of the Arab world. If Musharraf gets popped, what then? And how does Bush explain the non-prosecution of A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who proliferated nuclear weapon technology to North Korea and Iran who now vacations in a Villa in Pakistan?

Talk about a double standard, why is it okay for Israel to have nukes?

Who died and left this asshole Bush in charge?

If the United States were concerned about Islamic Fundamentalism then maybe it shouldn't have been so damn greedy in helping the British overthrow Mossedeq back in 1953 and installing the dictatorial Shah.

You can only mess with people for soo long before they actually do something to defend themselves. After seeing what these reckless fools did in Iraq, wouldn't YOU try to obtain nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent?

[DrWeird]

1. Because they're muslim.

And they're "the enemy" du jour.

[Postman]

2. how about a real answer...

I appreciate your disdain for these clowns but I would like to hear a reasonable argument as to why Iran should not be allowed to have nukes.

[DrWeird]

4. There is no real argument.

The whole thing's base on bigotry and "war on terror" hysteria.

Myself, I'd be perfectly happy if they developed nukes. It would save thousands of lives.

[RuleofLaw]

50. Actually there is a real answer:

Iran has been a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1970. Which prohibits states that does not already have nuclear weapons from acquiring them.

The trade off for those countries to sign up for the treaty was, that countries that already had nuclear weapons, agree to dismantle their arsenals, so over time , the world would be free of nuclear weapons.

Obviously, Iran is not happy that they have to fulfill their obligation , while the US does not.

[LynnTheDem]

79. So is America a member of the NPT. In fact the USA is an original member.

And America has chem & bio weapons they were to have properly disposed of and still haven't.

And how 'bout them new teacup nukes bush wants. How does that not violate the NPT?

And then let's add the supreme crime war of aggression to America's list of evil-doings.

[MichiganVote]

3. And they might not give us their oil

[murray hill farm]

5. It is called, I think..The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty....

it sets the parameters as to development of nuclear weapons and testing nuclear weapons. Iran, however is within its rights to develop nuclear energy.

[AZCat]

7. The official name is...

Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

I think it applies only if you have signed the treaty (187 parties as of March 2002).

[WritersBlock]

9. Am I correct in thinking that Israel isn't a signatory, yet Iran is?

I think I read that somewhere.

I'm also pretty sure that enrichment isn't banned under that treaty. So Iran's doing nothing to breach it even if they are enriching uranium.

Just more of those little things that the ** administration don't want us to realize. :)

[AZCat]

12. That is correct

Iran signed in 1968, Israel has not.

[K-W]

62. The one the White House wants to ignore?

Yah Iran should put lots of faith in international agreements at a time when the worlds only super power's government has declared itself above even its own law.

[AZCat]

6. As bizarre as it seems, it's only wrong to have nukes if you don't already

We really can't do much about those that have nuclear weapons already, so instead the U.S. concentrates on bullying those nations that don't.

Once a country like Pakistan (Muslim, dictatorship, unstable) acquires them, we no longer harass them about their nuclear weapons programs. The only exception to this seems to be North Korea, but they are an exception to a lot of rules.

And yes, if I was a country that had tenuous relations with the U.S. (Venezuela, are you listening) I would be doing my damnest to get my hands on some nuclear weapons.

[The Magistrate]

81. You Have Put The Case Precisely, Mr. Cat

They cannot have them because they do not already have them.

Anyone who has them already can keep them.

The reasons for both are obvious: any nation possessing them can make it far too difficult for anyone to take them away for it to be worth the attempt, and any nation that does not have them cannot prevent being halted in developing them by a power that already does possess them.

[evil_orange_cat]

8. maybe because they are a corrupt theocracy and would use them against us!

just my opinion though... Do you trust Iran with nukes? I don't.

edit: I should add that I don't support military action against Iran, but the Bush administration is correct in trying to use diplomacy against Iran. BTW, what would Clinton have done? Probably the same thing.

[Postman]

10. BTW, I'm not a Clinton supporter.

What makes them corrupt?

Are there theocrats there? Yes. In fact, I would think that the Christian right in this country has more in common with the Mullahs in Iran than they care to admit. They would love the draconian measures that "religion" imposes on society.

How about Saudi Arabia? Are they corrupt theocrats too? Oh, but the leadership of that country at this point in history happens to be just as greedy as the one running this country.

The Bush Administration is corrupt, unethical, immoral and has lied about everything under the sun. Clinton looks like Mother Theresa compared to these crooks.

Do I trust a nuclear Iran? I trust they won't be traveling halfway around the globe to invade other countries for dubious reasons.

Your reason for not trusting Iran (whatever fear-based logic that entails)must be based in the fact that Iran must have some past grievance with the US.

What do you think that might be?


on edit: to ask "what would Clinton have done" is pretty mucha lame indication that your argument is full of shit.

[evil_orange_cat]

26. geez, no wonder I don't post here more often...

I get long winded replies that amount to nothing except you saying my argument is full of shit. You are blinded by your hatred of Bush. Yeah, I hate Bush too. I think he's an asshole. I disagree with just about everything he does. But I don't let my grip of reality go like many on these forums have done.

Iran is 1000000000000 times worse than the Bushies and their Religious Right friends. If you can't see that, seek professional help. ;)

And I mentioned Clinton because most people are hypocrits and if Clinton were doing the same thing, there wouldn't be an outcry.

Is oil a factor? Sure. Is the neo-con agenda of wanting democracy in the region a factor? Sure. But nobody in their right mind should think it's all right for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

I really like the DU. But some people are turning me off to it. People that think ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS are better than Bush and company.

Get real.

[kysrsoze]

27. Please...what makes you think Clinton would do the same thing?

This is much more about trying to take over a country and ensure it does all transactions in U.S. dollars. There is nothing to indicate Clinton would have done the same thing. I don't consider them a danger to us, just like I never considered Hussein a danger to us. Neither do Russia, China and most of Europe.

People don't think Islamic fundamentalists are better than Bush.
One thing you might not know is that Iran was quickly headed in the "Western" direction (i.e.-better conditions for women and a move away from theocracy) until Bush et al fucked that all up. Now with all the war drums, they are freaked out about having the U.S. and Israel breathing down their backs, especially since we already stuck a knife in them by switching sides and backing Iraq (and the Shah of Iran). Iraq is in the process of installing a theocracy and now Iran is becoming more fundamentalist due to U.S. pressures. You push people far enough and they will react. Actions cause reactions.

You need to brush up on your history.

[evil_orange_cat]

30. sigh

maybe because CLinton was doing the same thing (diplomacy) when North Korea was at the stage Iran is now... I think Bush and company realize they fucked up with North Korea, letting them get nukes, and are trying to prevent Iran from getting them.

Am I scared of Iran? Nope. Was I scared of Iraq? No. I was against the war, but I'm hopeful that things are getting better. I wish for the day the US pulls out.

But Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. Or haven't you heard of Hezbollah (sp?)? THe idea of a state sponsor of terrorism getting nukes disturbs me.

Now it's all well and good to put on the tinfoil hat and believe in all these wild conspiracies, but it's another thing to say that Iran getting nukes isn't such a bad thing... which many here are doing.

[Postman]

33. North Korea got their nukes from A.Q. Khan...

the Pakistani scientist vacationing in Islamic Fundamentalist ally, Pakistan.

Your concern over Hezbollah is understandable. The Palestine/Israel occupied lands issue has been the driving force behind Hezbollah.

"State sponsor of terrorism" is really a dead phrase at this point in history because not only can you apply it to Iran but it also could be applied to the United States. The phrase is really just a propaganda tool to make dubious arguments.

Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism, are they on the list? How about Pakistan? It really is subjective as to whoever the enemy du jour is at the moment.

If you read the history of US involvement in Iran and throughout the Middle East you would have a better understanding of the motivations of those you fear and stop the saber rattling and start the REAL work of diplomacy.

[LynnTheDem]

80. You should do some research into the facts on Hezbollah

America is a state-sponsor of terrorism. Big time. And not only has nukes, but is the only nation to ever have used nukes. In an admited act of terrorism.

[Postman]

29. You obviously have misunderstood my points.

Tell me how Iran is a threat to the security of the United States.

I never said Islamic Fundamentalism is "better" than the Bush clan.

Democracy has nothing to do with it.

Ever heard of PNAC?

You still haven't put forth a logical argument as to why Iran shouldn't be allowed to have nukes.

Throwing up statements like "nobody in their right mind should think it's all right for Iran to have nuclear weapons" doesn't explain why they shouldn't have them.

Could you understand their motivation for obtaining them?

[John BigBootay]

31. They may not have ambitions to invade...

"I trust they won't be traveling halfway around the globe to invade other countries for dubious reasons."

But the radical Islamic movement has an established track record of causing mayhem and death when the opportunity presents itself. They do this not necessarily to "take over" a nation but to increase their prestige, gain followers, expand Islam and reap financial gain.

You say you are "happy" at the prosoect of a nuclear armed Iran-- I say that I believe you are an incredible fool.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John BigBootay]

46. Weak comeback. n/t

[Zinfandel]

15. That's bullshit, the real reason is ALWAYS monetary, oil and control of

the region.

Why does Bush allow N Korea to continue to make Nuclear weapons?
Because there's no monetary, or oil for reason to stop them right now.

Bush and the rest of these neo-cons fuckers absolutely want N Korea to "churn-out" nuclear weapons, another excuse for fear mongering and never ending war, which they have so much as admitted they want....Bush has been looking for reasons to use American nukes...N Korea offers Bush that excuse, of course when Bush does use them against N Korea, he will take no blame. It'll all be evil N Korea's fault. And once that occurs, Bush & the boys will use them at the drop of a hat, in Iran, Syria, etc... These fuckers really think they are playing the board game "Risk".

The reasons Bush gives is ALWAYS a lie to hide their real monetary motives, ALWAYS!

Here's the real monetary and oil reason about Iran & nukes...

The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintaining the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 statements by former administration insiders revealed that the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein. Indeed, the neoconservative strategy of installing a pro-U.S. government in Baghdad along with multiple U.S. military bases was partly designed to thwart further momentum within OPEC towards a "petroeuro." However, subsequent events show this strategy to be fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving forward towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia discusses this option.

Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. puppet in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. <1> In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China - were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed in Iraq.

(More) http://www.energybulletin.net/2913.html

[Postman]

21. How about Venezuela?

Think Chevez has any ideas?

I wonder what the chances are of a gov't sponsored program modeled after the Apollo space program to get the US off of an oil economy?

Is THAT hell freezing over?

[solinvictus]

11. Because in the Middle East..

only Israel can have nuclear weapons. It scares the crap out of them for a Muslim country to achieve strategic parity with them.

[UdoKier]

13. Because they have never nuked innocent civilians.

Only countries who have needlessly slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians with atomic bombs truly know how to handle the responsibility.

<sarcasm off>

[Postman]

17. they were collateral damage. The real target was the military base.

Harry Truman declared that Hiroshima, a military base, was destroyed.....(or something to that effect, pretty disgraceful)

[UdoKier]

18. Hiroshima was not a military base. It was a teeming city.

There were munitions factories in the city, but nothing that couldn't have been targeted with conventional bombing by B-29s. As a matter of fact, Hiroshima was never bombed at all before the A-bomb because they were "saving it" so they could study the effects of the blast on an urban center. Do you think they would have left a significant "military base" of any tactical significance unscathed even as they leveled the rest of the country? It was one of the most cynical, calculated, evil and racist things ever done by this country's government.

The firebombings on other cities were also quite horrific, but at least people had a CHANCE to escape, and the survivors didn't live with a legacy of radiation sickness, cancers and deformities that continued for decades.

[Postman]

22. I know all of that and I agree with you.

It was also a signal to the Soviets.

Words don't decribe the injustice perpetrated on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nor do they describe the disgusting, anti-human callousness of the American gov't toward Japan.

[Mystified]

47. Oh please.

"Words don't decribe the injustice perpetrated on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nor do they describe the disgusting, anti-human callousness of the American gov't toward Japan."

Then Japan shouldn't have declared war on America and bombed Pearl Harbor. War sucks. It's hell. Lots of people die. What about the disgusting, anti-human callousness of the Japanese government to America, or China for that matter? When you fight a war you fight it to win at all costs. Did we have to drop the Bomb on the 2 cities? Maybe, maybe not. However, it was a much better option than traditional bombing with B-29s, many of which would've been shot down. We saved countless American pilots' lives by not bombing in the traditional manner, and in war the object is to lose less people than your enemy. Japan was the enemy.

[leesa]

60. But of course they were ready to surrender and we knew it

It was a show of force for Russia. Love those old romantic war movies, don't you?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leesa]

61. BS. They were ready to surrender. Murdering civilians is needless.

[UdoKier]

69. Don't get me started on this.

By your logic, we should have nuked Pyongyang, Hanoi and Baghdad, and I ain't buying it.

[not systems]

71. Nice. I suppose you will think the same ...

if it is others killing us?

Because "a country is at war" it makes mass slaughter
of civilians OK.

What an idea.

[Jack_DeLeon]

14. Because we say so...

eom.

[Postman]

16. Who is "we"?

n/t

[More Than A Feeling]

19. I do not believe that one can so cavalierly dismiss that possibility

That they will fall into the hands of those who actively seek to do us harm. The fact of the matter is that the more nukes there are, the more chances there are for something to go wrong. As long as there is a chance that we can keep nukes from spreading, either by locking down unprotected ones in Russia and Pakistan, or by using diplomatic pressure on Iran and North Korea, we should do so. Regardless of our past misdeeds or which of our client states already has nukes, that is not an excuse for us to stand by and let new states acquire them, whatever the reason.

I say us, because, if the Bush administration had any brains, we could easily lead a coalition of the world's nuclear powers to rectify this problem once and for all. Might help us regain some credibility.

On edit: The Bush administration is like the Boy who cried wolf. They have cried "crisis" so much that if there ever really is one (and Iran may or may not be it), we will all be so cynical we won't believe them. The blame for that lies squarely on Bush's shoulders.

[Postman]

25. Good point. But...

the Bush Administrations actions have contributed to the proliferation of the weapons he alleges they want to restrict.

We can't pretend that the actions of our gov't overseas don't have consequences.

I try not to fall into the trap of using the words "us" and "we" in describing the political leadership of this country. There is nothing that they have done I would want to lay claim to.

[More Than A Feeling]

32. I agree with you, Bush has not made us safer

In no way, shape, or form are we safer now than we were four years ago. The danger is ever present, and there isn't too much we can do, except, as Kerry suggested, to reduce the worry over that danger to a mere nuisance.

Bush has made it worse, i do agree with you there, but it seemed as though your original post was about justifying the Iranians acquisition of nukes, because of the actions of Bush, which I disagree with. We should remember that just because Bush is a problem for us, doesn't mean that things aren't happening in far off places that could end up being just as dangerous and Bush, as silly as he is, could one day be right about something. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Disclaimer: Bush is the worst president ever. hands down. no question. This post does not justify or excuse anything he has done.

[Postman]

36. I'm not trying to justify, trying to understand motivations.

and Bush's actions have created conditions that have made us all less safe.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. clearly I misunderstood

I was confused by the title "why can't Iran have nukes?"

[LSK]

20. because we need an excuse to prevent them from selling oil in euros

We cant say we are invading a country to protect our dollar. Even Hitler tried to make up BS excuses at 1st...

http://www.energybulletin.net/2913.html

[alittlelark]

24. Ding Ding Ding..... a winner!!!

Iraq was switching as well, when oil is traded in Euros the Dollar collapses.

[donheld]

23. As long as Nukes are in the hands of

Bushie, Rummy, Cheney etc. they are already in the wrong hands.

[Heyo]

28. Because they'd use them..

..without hesitation.

I could care less about a double standard. You wan't people who preach nothing but "Death to America! Death to America!" armed with nuclear weapons?

I know we have them, and I could care less how "unfair" they may think it is. It would be insanely reckless to let them get nuclear weapons and it would be the fastest route to seeing a mushroom cloud somewhere that I can think of.

If N. Korea and Iran both simultaneously got their hands on nuclear weapons at midnight tonight, I would bet that it would be Iran that would set one off inside another country before North Korea would. (probably as fast as they could load it inside of a Krispy Kreme truck and park it in downtown Tel Aviv)

Heyo

[Vladimir]

34. Why would they use them exactly?

it would be supremely irrational and invite Israel to hand their ass to them on a Uranium enriched plate. Or are we (read: westerners, whites), the only ones capable of making rational decisions?

NK has them and isn't using them, because they are much more useful as a deterrent. You'd better learn to love the bomb, cos pretty soon every third world country is either gonna get one or find itself "pre-empted".

[Mystified]

48. Why would they use them?

"..it would be supremely irrational and invite Israel to hand their ass to them on a Uranium enriched plate."

Well, the world is full of people who do irrational things. One wouldn't think it rational to use a bomb to commit suicide in a pizzeria or shopping mall in order to kill people from another religion/country but apparently that has happened on numerous occasions. Irrational people don't tend to arrive at logical conclusions.

[Heyo]

51. The reason I think that they would use them...

.... is the fervor with which they despise their sworn enemies, (hold up mirror).

There is an element within Iran who wake up in the morning, and all they think about all day long is how to destroy the US and Israel until they go to bed, and wake up and do the same the next day.

IMO, the reason the haven't used them is because they don't have them. Whether or not they would openly use one (balistic missile) or covertly (truknk of a car) remains to be seen.

Do you want people who SWEAR upon your (and my) death in the name of Allah to have nuclear weapons? I don't.

:dunce:

Heyo

[leesa]

58. Right. Of course it was Sharon who said he wanted all Muslims dead.

How's the Kool-Aid. Tasty?

[Heyo]

83. You got that quote?

can you post a link?

Heyo

[Postman]

37. Try looking past your nose, please.

Why would they be chanting "death to America"? Or don't you care?

[Heyo]

52. ...

"Why would they be chanting "death to America"? Or don't you care?"

When it comes to them having nuclear weapons, no, I don't particularly care. It's just the tired old "great Satan" rhetoric they've been spewing since the 80's, with a new face and new excuses.

Heyo

[Liberal Veteran]

66. That's part of the problem: Not enough Americans really care.

Why we are despised in those countries.

It surely isn't the ridiculous "they hate our freedoms" bullshit.

The average American thinks: Hey, I'm a nice guy. My neighbor is a nice guy. If they hate us, they must be evil!

We need to be a little more open to correcting the reasons for why there is dislike of the US in those countries.

[Heyo]

82. The reason why the hate us....

....will not sheild any American cities from blast pressure or gamma radiation.

I get your point and all, more people whould "understand" why they hate us and all that... fine and good..

...but the nuke issue petains more to the IF (they hate us) than the WHY. If they hate us because or our freedoms, because of Israel, or because we eat with our napkins on our laps, it's wise not to let them be armed with nuclear weapons.

:dunce:

Heyo

[Hippo_Tron]

39. There is something to be said when you ANNOUNCE your nukes

Meaning that you probably want them as a deterrant and not to sell them to terrorists.

[number6]

40. cause smirky man sez so

actually they have as much right to have them as any one else.

[wadestock]

41. FOR THE SAME REASON WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ

HELLO??????

We support Israel's nuclear arsenal...approximatley 100 plus nukes....plus a number of insidious nuke subs cruising around.

Why do you think the entire Middle East is on the edge?

Solution:

1. Go to the WORLD and announce that the US will completely control Israeli nukes. What's that sound....oh...a collective sigh of relief around the world?

2. Announce that Israel is under the US "nuclear umbrella"...hey I know that's insane...but that's our position...so why not officially announce it?

3. Announce to the world that there will be NO launches of nukes during ANY war in the middle east....as a result of strict US nuclear control.

4. Announce to the world THAT THE US WILL ENGAGE IN A RELENTLESS PROGRAM TO DISARM THE NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF ISRAEL.

SUDDENLY THE ROAD TO PEACE IN THE WORLD STARTS TO TAKE HOLD

YOU CAN TAKE THE NEOCONS OF THOMAS BARNETT ET AL AND FLUSH EM ALL DOWN THE TOILET BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY SOLUTION FOR WORLD PEACE.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Another problem that is seriously complicated by having * in power

Because * and his asshole friends can't think farther than "We are superior than the rest of the world, we can do whatever the fuck that we want."

Iran having nuclear weapons is a security threat so long as we continue to piss them off and invading Iraq doesn't help that.

Continuing to build our own new nuclear wepaons (under *) doesn't help either.

Oh and here's where the shit really hits the fan...

"You're either with us, or you're against us."

What if an Islamic nation chooses not to participate in this "War on Terra"? Why should we force them? Especially since supporting the War on Terror means supporting Iraq which has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

What is Iran supposed to think when they choose not to participate in the War on Terra? That maybe we are going to invade them?

Our moron in chief has taken a controllable problem and magnified it to great proportions.

[theboss]

43. I suspect that Pakistan no longer has the keys to its nukes

One of the rumors that has been floating around DC since 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan is that Musharraf gave control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to the CIA in case a coup occurred. I don't think this qualifies as tin-hat stuff since it seems like a reasonable trade-off for propping up his awful regime.

[ldf]

44. iran should DEMAND

that the u.s. completely rid ourselves of all nuclear weapon capabilities.

while WE are telling iran IT must do exactly the same thing while WE go on to develop burrowing bunker buster nuclear bombs.

i see absolutely no hypocrisy in that whatsoever.

(/sarcasm)

[Orsino]

45. Who?

Who died and left this asshole Bush in charge?

Her name was Democracy.

[eridani]

72. His name was Diebold n/t

[wadestock]

53. BECAUSE THEY MIGHT SHOOT THEM AT ISRAEL

They represent no threat whatsoever to the US, with the possible exception of the Thomas Barnett inspired takeover of the Middle East....

We could easily control Israel's nuclear arsenal, but why do that...it might save lives....might end the war....might lead to peace in the Middle East...not so good considering they would be able to control their own destiny.

Daddy started the whole ball rolling when he invaded Iraq...hmmm...kill 2 birds with one stone....do dirty work for the Saudis....get in a better position to influence oil AND protect Israel. What the corrupt business men in power would call a WIN-WIN scenario.

[found object]

54. That would be m.a.d.

If a country like Iran wants to develop nukes it would be for reasons of bargaining power when it comes to defining their POLITICAL persuasion in that region. The US can not militarily threaten a country if that country has a way to react in an overwhelming way. This is what is known as M.A.D.(mutually assured destruction.) Iran is much more interested in exporting oil and securing fresh water than they are in blowing up Israel. Blowing up Israel would mean game-over for Iran and I don't think that would be in their best interest.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. Agree 100%, Israel shouldn't have nukes either

If I ever run for office I will be a Jewish Democrat who is proud to tell the AIPAC people to go fuck themselves.

[Fescue4u]

55. Iran is the wrong hands.

The cant have nukes because we say that cant have nukes.

Its just like my kids.

My children don't play with knives because I say so.

Fact of the matter is, that part of the world has proven that they cannot handle anything more lethal than a squirt gun.

Is it a double standard? Why yes it is.

Is it the right thing to do? you betcha.

[Liberal Veteran]

64. Right now if I were Iran, I'd be trying to get nukes too.

The current regime in charge of the US is not to be trusted when it come to the Middle East.

[Fescue4u]

74. yup.

But Bush won't be there forever.

[K-W]

67. If you believe the US should have nukes you are a racist.

If not I agree, but your argument is confusing.

The US government has a long history of illegal agressive foriegn policy. If we deserve nukes, there are few countries that dont.

[Liberal Veteran]

68. I tend to agree that the direction our country is heading...

...and the throwing our weight around and recklessly invading countries without international support as well as pissing off the world.

The other thing is that I believe the US is well on it's way to losing it's status in the world as a major economic powerhouse and it is showing in the dollar being considered "risky" currency. In addition to that we are stagnating as a culture which will exacerbate the problem and probably make us even more beligerent a neighbor in the world community.

Sad as it is to say, the US is reached a point where we can't be trust to have nukes.

Look at the US trying to develop DEPLOYABLE NUKES! That should scare the shit out of everyone.

[Fescue4u]

76. Nukes = racism ?

Wow thats a new argument.

I had no idea that nuclear weapons even had a racial identity.

[rman]

70. Iran does not equal "that part of the world"

The US is not Iran's parent.

Would you say the US can be trusted to use lethal force responsibly?

[Fescue4u]

75. You have a point

But it doesnt change the facts.

While the US hasnt behaved that responsibly with lethal force recently, on balance we are still way ahead.

No doubt if the terrorist regimes were equiped with Nukes, we would not be alive to have this conversation.

Conversely, the US, even with publicans at the helm, has not resorted to incerinerating the world.

On balance, the world is far better off with Iran as disarmed as much as possible.

[rman]

78. by definition there's no such thing as "terrorist regimes"

according to Bush, terrorists belong to a global organization called Al Quada - that's not a regime.

To me it looks like the US with republicans at the helm is well on its way to incerinerate the world. In your own words: "the US hasnt behaved that responsibly with lethal force recently"

The world would be much better off without Bush as president of the US, don't you think?

[leesa]

56. Because Israel doesn't want them to have them. Only THEY can have 100s

of nukes pointed at their neighbors. NO ONE is allowed to defend themselves from Israel.

[Dunedain]

59. Who died and left this asshole Bush in charge?

DemocracyDemocracy \De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. d<'e>mocratie, fr. Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people +
kratei^n to be strong, to rule, kra`tos strength.]
1. Government by the people; a form of government in which
the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by
the people.

[oasis]

73. I believe the poster meant "in charge of the planet." Let the people

of the entire planet vote on whether they should submit to the will of the Chimperor.

[Spider Jerusalem]

63. Treaty violation, violation of international law, etc...

As a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has pledged NOT to pursue nuclear weapons; therefore, under international law, any steps they take to do so constitute breach of treaty provisions and may be halted through use of military force.

Although to be legitimate, any such action would have to be undertaken after a UN Security Council vote, and not unilaterally by the US.

[K-W]

65. I dont think you are looking at the big picture.

The United States has violated international law and attacked Iraq for alleged weapons violations. The US has threatned it alongside Iraq since before that war and continues to threaten it and single it out and talk of its weapons. The US has not only broken international law to attack Iraq's neighbor already, it has talked about, itself violating nuclear treaties.

I think Iran has a clear case that they must defend themselves and international law has failed. Iran is a soveriegn country and they have the right to defend themselves. The US is clearly antagonistic, and has shown a will to attack, Iran has a case that the US never did.

The entire international nuclear structure is contingent upon nuclear nations not becoming aggressive.

[Rhiannon12866]

77. I think you ask some excellent questions

And I've asked them all myself, but you put together a very compelling case. Add the very real threat of North Korea to the mix, which Bush* has successfully failed to address since he took office, and you have a "slam dunk.":shrug: