Should Iran be prevented from having nuclear weapons?

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:53 pm

First topic message reminder :

I used to think it was breathtaking arrogance and hypocrisy for those countries which have nuclear weapons to make judgements about which other countries could, or couldn’t, have them as well. After all, if you want to take the moral high ground on this issue, shouldn’t you get rid of your own nuclear weapons before telling other countries that they can’t have them?

My opinion changed immediately when I heard the President of the Islamofascist state of Iran (who goes by some name like ‘Ironmydinnerjacket’) say, on the first of several occasions, that he wanted "to wipe Israel off the map”. George W. Bush, with his talk of 'crusades' and his readiness to go to war against Saddam Hussein “because he tried to kill my daddy”, was a dangerous man to have in charge of nuclear weapons, but no Western power has talked of wiping out nations.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and Germany, have expressed their "increasing concern" over Iran's nuclear programme, and they have called for clarification over any possible military uses. Iran insists that the programme is for purely peaceful purposes, but the International Atomic Agency says they want to send a high level mission to Iran to clear up any confusion.

With nuclear weapons, Iran could do very serious damage to Israel, and a pre-emptive strike by the Israelis must be a strong possibility. Should we support that, or even precipitate it? Are attempts at negotiation with Iran a waste of time?

by witchfinder Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:30 pm

The link here to ynet-news (Israel) shows a satelite image of the nuclear site in Iran near the city of Qom, the site is deep inside a mountain making any attempted bombing attemt very difficult.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4173459,00.html

The Negev nuclear research centre near the town of Dimona is where the so called "secret" Israeli nuclear research centre is, and where Isreals nuclear weapons were developed and are held.

No one ever complained or objected when Israel developed a nuclear capability, its all simply brushed under the carpet by western governments.

GOOD LUCK TO IRAN

by Shirina Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:04 pm

GOOD LUCK TO IRAN

Which is sort of like saying, "Good luck, Lee Harvey Oswald, in your attempts at getting a gun. Of course you should have a gun because the Secret Service has them!"

by **Ivan** Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:55 pm

No one ever complained or objected when Israel developed a nuclear capability

Probably because (a) Israel can never afford to lose a war, and (b) Israel has never threatened to wipe any other country off the map.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:27 pm

All of which would change overnight if the West were to discover a cheap and efficient alternative to Oil.

by witchfinder Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:11 pm

Iran is a terrorist state ( according to the United States ) but Israel is not

Do you realy realy expect any reasonable and sane thinking person to believe that Israel is an innocent and defenseless nation, guilty of doing no harm to anyone, and at the same time expect us to believe that Iran is the cause of all middle eastern problems.

Israel is a nation born out of terrorism, its very existence is thanks to terrorism, and since 1949 the inhuman acts have never ceased, the Israelis took land off arabs, they killed arabs and stole their land.

Today the Israelis are continuing to take land away from arabs, they are continuing to take what is not theirs, its theft, its against UN resolutions and it ilegal.

The Israelis frequently give Palestinian arabs 24 hours to get out of their homes, they then bulldoze the homes to the ground, they often and frequently then destroy crops, orange trees, olive groves and intimidate remaining Palestinians.

This has been going on for generations, yet the west says nothing, instead the American government supports this terrorist state with finance and military hardware.

Christians are better treated and have more rights in Iran than Palestinians do in the occupied territories of Gazza and the West Bank.

Israel is a terrorist state, armed with weapons of mass destruction, in breech of UN resolutions, guilty of apartheid.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:01 pm

“The courts [in Iran] have the right to impose the death sentence on male apostates and life imprisonment for female apostates. Effectively, Iran is a religious dictatorship… Religious persecution of certain minorities has intensified since 2005. This is aimed at the Baha’i, Sufi Muslims and Christians, especially believers from a Muslim background. Almost all Christian activity is illegal, especially when it occurs in Persian languages…” (The Voice of the Martyrs, http://www.persecution.net/iran.htm).
__________________________________________________________________________________________

“Since August 2004, some 503 Baha'is have been arrested in Iran… about 102 Iranian Baha'is [are] currently in prison because of their religion… [a few Baha’is] are serving periods of internal exile… [Baha’is] have been deprived of education, questioned, threatened, denied their pensions, or debarred from earning a livelihood… Seven Baha’i educators… received four- or five-year prison sentences… transcripts… say that the seven were found guilty of ‘membership in the deviant Bahaist sect, with the goal of taking action against the security of the country, in order to further the aims of the deviant sect…’” (Baha’i Faith, http://news.bahai.org/human-rights/iran/iran-update/#arrests).

by Shirina Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:43 pm

Do you realy realy expect any reasonable and sane thinking person to believe that Israel is an innocent and defenseless nation, guilty of doing no harm to anyone, and at the same time expect us to believe that Iran is the cause of all middle eastern problems.

I don't think anyone is saying that, precisely, but one thing is certain: Israel is both democratic and stable, neither of which can really be said for Iran. We're already ruing the day Pakistan got a hold of nukes given that the Pakistani leadership is constantly walking a tightrope between its Western allies and it's strong Taliban warlords. They have been an unreliable ally at best given that bin Laden was hiding in plain sight in Pakistan for nearly 6 years. The thought of nukes falling into the hands of the Taliban is nightmarish to say the least. The West does not wish to make that same mistake again.

Israel is a nation born out of terrorism, its very existence is thanks to terrorism, and since 1949 the inhuman acts have never ceased, the Israelis took land off arabs, they killed arabs and stole their land.

Did they? Or was it the other way around. Keep in mind that Hebrews once inhabited the land of Israel before the Muslims conquered it in the 7th Century. Would the Jews have allowed the Muslims to build the Dome of the Rock on top of the Temple of Solomon if the Jews owned the land?

This has been going on for generations, yet the west says nothing, instead the American government supports this terrorist state with finance and military hardware.

That's their own fault, as far as I'm concerned. The United States had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of Israel nor did it have anything to do with how the lines were drawn in the Middle East after WWI. That was entirely Europe's doing since the US Congress struck down America's membership in the League of Nations. At that point, the USA no longer had a voice in the post-WWI era and instead focused on isolationism. After all, what did we care? At the time, America was producing an exporting more oil than the entire Middle East combined. We didn't need their stinkin' oil ... but Europe did. It was precisely the reason why Europe reneged on the promise of granting independence to their Arab colonies - Britain especially was worried that all of that oil would fall outside of its empire. Thus both Iraq and Egypt remained British colonies while Syria and Lebanon went to the French.

No one in the Middle East cared about America, and no one in America cared much about the Middle East. If America had any overseas goals, they were in the Pacific, most notably the Philippines which fell under US control after the Spanish-American War. The formation of Israel was all about Europe and the British withdrawal from the Mandate of Palestine. America didn't become the target until after WWII when the USA usurped Britain as the most powerful Western nation ... then suddenly and inexplicably it was all America's fault. Not sure how that happened, exactly, but it really doesn't make sense.

in breech of UN resolutions

It's interesting that you would bring up breaching UN Resolutions because all of this nonsense is taking place because the Arab's refused to accept UN Resolution 181 (approved in 1947) granting a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine controversy. The Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee refused to accept the plan and launched attacks on Jewish targets. The Jewish Agency declared independence, named itself "Israel" and was immediately attacked by Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. Saudi Arabia helped and even Yemen declared war. Egypt seized control of the Gaza Strip and Jordan annexed the West Bank. They lost all of that land when the Arabs tried killing off Israel again in the Yom Kippur War and had their backsides promptly handed to them by the IDF. Oops!

Therefore, I'm not really sure why you think Israel has been taking Arab lands via terrorism given that the Arabs have been uncooperative since the 7th Century when they took the land from the Hebrews in the first place. By the way, the UN recognized the state of Israel with a majority vote in 1949.

by witchfinder Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:20 pm

shirina

You mention the "two state solution" which would be acceptable to the vast majority of Palestinians, so why is it not acceptable to Israel. ?

The present impasse has been going on since the late 1940s, together with the bloodshed, the killings and the terrorism from both sides, why cannot you see that if Israel decided tomorrow that there should be a two state solution, then virtualy all the problems of the middle east would be solved - peace could then ensue.

The anti western attitudes of many Muslims including the extremists who have committed terrorist attrocities are as a direct result of the wests indifference towards Israel its actions.

I am afraid that I have no reluctance in stating that the terrorist attacks of 911 in the United States were as a direct result of United States foreign policy, the US made themselves a target.

by Shirina Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:30 am

The present impasse has been going on since the late 1940s, together with the bloodshed, the killings and the terrorism from both sides, why cannot you see that if Israel decided tomorrow that there should be a two state solution, then virtualy all the problems of the middle east would be solved - peace could then ensue.

I agree that a two-state solution would be to everyone's advantage. It would simply be adhering to the original UN Resolution. Why the Arabs didn't agree to it then but now they want one is a mystery to me.

I am afraid that I have no reluctance in stating that the terrorist attacks of 911 in the United States were as a direct result of United States foreign policy, the US made themselves a target.

America has often been erroneously perceived as a nation filled with fat, rich people too comfortable to get up from their couches and fight. History has proven them wrong again ... and again ... and again. Thus it seems bizarre (and ignorant) to believe that attacking and killing thousands of American civilians in our largest city would cause America to suddenly abandon Israel and cower under the threat of terrorism.

After the shock wore off, we were angry ... and united. Flags flew EVERYWHERE, from cars, from homes, from bridges. America was pissed off and we wanted war. Did the Taliban really believe that we wouldn't? Did Osama bin Laden think that America would cry in the corner? It was the stupidest thing the Muslims could have done, and because of that attack, the chances of America EVER throwing Israel to the Muslim wolves is next to nothing. You can't punch someone in the nose and then expect him to shake your hand. Bullying simply doesn't work on America. Osama bin Laden should have been a part of the peace process instead of creating more war and resentment.

by witchfinder Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:45 am

When something like 911 happens, its time to have a rethink, its time to consider whether you may have incited radicals to committ such attrocities.

Let us be absoultely honest here, the Americans invaded Afghanistan and went after the Taliban because they were seen as the main instigators behind the 911 attack.

The Islamic extremists successfuly plotted a massive terrorist attack against the United States, whom they see as an enemy in supporting and propping up the Israeli regime, who in turn treat Palestinians worse than dogs.

SO TELL ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS ?

Is it not time for negotiated settlement, and if that is not possible, then is it not time for a forced settlement.

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:11 pm

witchfinder wrote:When something like 911 happens, its time to have a rethink, its time to consider whether you may have incited radicals to committ such attrocities.

Let us be absoultely honest here, the Americans invaded Afghanistan and went after the Taliban because they were seen as the main instigators behind the 911 attack.....

Iraq. George W Bush invaded Iraq. His Daddy had SUPPORTED the Taliban when they were fighting the Russkies.

by witchfinder Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:01 pm

oftenwrong

Yes - there are most certainly double standards here, and its not only the Americans who are guilty of moraly corrupt foreign policies.

The Americans are calling on Syria to stop attacking its own people, stop shooting at civillians, yet this goes on every day in the occupied territories.

JUST ONE OF MANY STORIES OF SURVIVAL FROM THE WEST BANK

Just before Christmas close to the west bank / Israeli border, a schoolboy aged 13 "Nhedal Khaleel Hamdan" was collecting scrap metal in order to sell and give money to his family, this is a fairly common practice amongst the desperately poor Palestinian families.

The Israeli border guards shot at the boy and badly injured him, he was taken to one hospital, then taken to another, a doctor at the Beit Hanoun Hospital told reporters how all medical supplies in the Emergency Room are rationed because of the blockade. ( international solidarity movement )

by Shirina Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:03 pm

Iraq. George W Bush invaded Iraq. His Daddy had SUPPORTED the Taliban when they were fighting the Russkies.

I suppose I don't know what people expect - that global politics remains static and unchanging? Russia was an ally of convenience during WWII, the Taliban was an ally of convenience during the Cold War. It happens. Look how quickly China turned on the West once the communists took over. In 1945, we're helping the Chinese fight for its life against the Japanese. Just five years later, we're fighting the Chinese in Korea. By the way, it was Ronald Reagan who supported the Taliban against the Russians; Reagan was very much a hardliner against the Soviets. His presidency is defined by the Cold War. It is very similar to Churchill when he said, "If Hitler invaded hell, I would at least make a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Reagan felt the same way about the Russians.

by Shirina Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:14 pm

The Americans are calling on Syria to stop attacking its own people, stop shooting at civillians, yet this goes on every day in the occupied territories.

Why do you insist on calling the West Bank an "occupied" territory? That would be like calling the Netherlands an occupied territory since Germany took it from the Dutch, but because the Dutch got it back, the Dutch are now "occupying" Holland.

When something like 911 happens, its time to have a rethink, its time to consider whether you may have incited radicals to committ such attrocities.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, perhaps America should have reconsidered its decision to shut off the sale of oil to Japan? Perhaps when Germany bombed Britain, Britain should have simply backed off and allowed Germany to have Europe instead of fighting. When Argentina invaded the Falklands ... well, you get the idea. We could have a big historical hindsight extravaganza by pointing out everything the West "shoulda, coulda, woulda" have done, but by your logic, the West would have been the world's doormat.

by witchfinder Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:49 pm

The "Occupied Territories" is a term which refers to lands seized by Israel during the six day war of 1967.

The term "Occupied Territory" is a legal term designated and used by the United Nations, other international organisations and many countries.

There is no comparison between Pearl Harbour and the present middle east conflict, the Japanese at that time were imperialistic and expansionist.
The situation in the middle east is simply that the Palestinians want their land back, which was taken from them, they simply want a homeland - something that Israel enjoys.

by **astradt1** Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:27 pm

Was the bomb attack in Iran which killed one of it's nuclear scienists the work of internal terrorists or another country?

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:11 am

astradt1 wrote:Was the bomb attack in Iran which killed one of it's nuclear scienists the work of internal terrorists or another country?

It probably wasn't Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan's suicide.

by witchfinder Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:35 pm

The Iranian government denies attempting to create nuclear weapons, infact it categorically denies it ( official quote ), the official news agency of Iran (fars) officialy denies that Iran seeks to make nuclear weapons.

The state run press and tv organisation ( press tv ) continualy denies that Iran is attemping to produce nucllear weapons.

It just makes me personaly wonder, that if Iran did eventualy test a nuclear device, it realy would make Iran look extremely silly, a huge liar and a nation that could never be trusted to tell the truth, it would leave Iran with egg all over its face.

I am not saying or infering that I personaly believe everything that Iran officialy states, what I am saying is that it does make you think, and that in reality you dont know who to believe.

by **Phil Hornby** Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:30 pm

When President Ironmydinnerjacket suddenly produces a nuclear weapon out of his back pocket he will tell the world that he didn't want to do it , but was forced to do so because he feared an attack by the USA or Israel - or even Britain itself.

As with Cameron , Clegg etc., etc ., saying something which turns out later to be a monster whopper is of absolutely no personal concern - a pathological liar has no conscience or sense of shame...

by Shirina Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:02 pm

The Iranian government denies attempting to create nuclear weapons, infact it categorically denies it ( official quote ), the official news agency of Iran (fars) officialy denies that Iran seeks to make nuclear weapons.

North Korea said the same thing as did Iraq in 1981.

It just makes me personaly wonder, that if Iran did eventualy test a nuclear device, it realy would make Iran look extremely silly

True, but they would be a silly country with nuclear weapons.

by keenobserver1 Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:14 pm

Shirina wrote:
The Iranian government denies attempting to create nuclear weapons, infact it categorically denies it ( official quote ), the official news agency of Iran (fars) officialy denies that Iran seeks to make nuclear weapons.
North Korea said the same thing as did Iraq in 1981.
It just makes me personaly wonder, that if Iran did eventualy test a nuclear device, it realy would make Iran look extremely silly
True, but they would be a silly country with nuclear weapons.

We didn't find any nuclear weapons in Iraq?

by oftenwrong Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:32 pm

It's hard to find something that was never there in the first place, but George Dubya Bush needed SOME excuse to invade Iraq.

by keenobserver1 Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:37 pm

oftenwrong wrote:It's hard to find something that was never there in the first place, but George Dubya Bush needed SOME excuse to invade Iraq.

Our PM from that time was questioned about that at a public enquiry, and he said that it didn't really matter that they didn't have any because we needed to depose the current dictator of that country, and then started rambling on about AQ Khan and Iran being the next threat that needed to be dealt with.

by Guest Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:47 am

Shirina wrote:
North Korea said the same thing as did Iraq in 1981.

keenobserver1 wrote:
We didn't find any nuclear weapons in Iraq?

Iraq, or more specifically, the ruthless dictator that owned Iraq, said one thing. Facts said another thing.

The Israeli Defence Force/Air Force acted on facts. One consequence of IDF’s 1981 action was a note from the US SECDEF to the Israeli ambassador in Washington D.C. at the conclusion of Operation Desert Storm thanking Israel and its IDF for saving countless lives, including British lives, American lives, and (watch out now) French lives, by removing from Saddam’s possession the nuclear reactor engineered and constructed for him by French folks.

by Guest Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:44 am

Iran embargo gathers support in Asia, Europe
By Parisa Hafezi | Reuters – 3 hrs ago

TEHRAN (Reuters) - U.S. allies in Asia and Europe voiced support for Washington's drive to cut Iran's oil exports, although fear of self-inflicted pain is curbing enthusiasm for an embargo that Tehran says will not halt its nuclear program.

The speaker of Iran's parliament, Ali Larijani, said on Thursday that the nuclear program was also too strong to be derailed by assassinations of nuclear scientists, a day after the fourth such killing.

As a newspaper close to the clerical establishment called for retaliatory assassinations of Israeli officials, a former U.N. inspector said a new, almost bomb-proof plant could provide Iran enough enriched uranium for an atom bomb in just a year.

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/iran-embargo-gathers-support-asia-europe-001014474.html

by oftenwrong Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:40 am

The deciding factor will be Russia's continuing opposition to any US proposals to restrain Iran physically.

by Guest Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:51 am

Iranian Student Activist Shot to Death in Texas
By CHRISTINA NG | ABC News – 11 hrs ago
(ABC News)

A Texas medical student well-known in her community as an Iranian activist was mysteriously shot and killed in her car, just yards from her home.

Gelareh Bagherzadeh, 30, was driving through her Houston townhouse complex around midnight on Monday when she was shot dead through her car window.

"When officers arrived, they found a vehicle had run into a garage door at that location with the engine running and tires spinning on the pavement. Ms. Bagherzadeh was found slumped over in the driver's seat," the Houston Police Department said in a statement.

Authorities said nothing appeared to have been stolen from her car. Her cell phone and purse were found inside.

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/iranian-student-activist-shot-death-texas-193747641--abc-news.html

by oftenwrong Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:29 am

Russia says attack on Iran would be a 'catastrophe' and aggravate divisions between Sunnis and Shiites.
Reuters 09.20 18 Jan 2012

by **astradt1** Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:18 pm

Europe, Iran's biggest customer for their oil exports has declared an embargo against importing Iraian oil, the result be higher prices for crude oil and fuel, of course this will not affect the USA as much as it will Europe but then again the main push for this has come from the USA...

Another case of the USA saying jump and Europe, including Britain asking how high?

by wyouser Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:32 pm

Were Iran to do something in retaliation there might well be an impact on the USA. The question being, just how stable is this economic recovery that we are supposed to be in?

by Guest Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:37 pm

astradt1 wrote:
Another case of the USA saying jump and Europe, including Britain asking how high?

No.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:04 am

Oil embargo against Iran?

Yeah! Don't let 'em have any.

by witchfinder Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:19 pm

Some major importers of Iranian oil have indicated that they will not support an oil embargo against Iran, these nations include Russia, China, Turkey and India.

The Turkish government has quite rightly said that any decision taken outside of the United Nations is not binding to any nation, the combined consumption between China and India alone accounts for almost 40% of Irans oil exports.

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:30 pm

witchfinder wrote:
... Russia, China, Turkey and India.

Not exactly a gathering of righteous beacons of decency.

by oftenwrong Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:32 pm

Edmund Burke

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

by Guest Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:58 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Edmund Burke

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Once more, we agree.

by Stox 16 Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:07 am

WHAT SHOULD BE US POLICY ON IRAN BE? OR DOES IT NOT MATTER IN THE END?

In last night’s GOP presidential debate on CNN, moderator John King allowed a viewer to introduce a topic bedeviling U.S. foreign policy at the moment — Iran’s nuclear program. With war chatter on the rise, top U.S. officials have injected their opinions into the public debate.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said on Sunday that an Israeli attack on Iran was “not prudent at this point” and that such a strike would be “destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve [Israel's] long-term objectives.” When King asked Newt Gingrich if, as president, he would take Dempsey’s advice, the former House Speaker dismissed the U.S.’s top military officer opinion, saying he “can’t imagine why” Dempsey holds some of his views:
Not only does Gingrich dismiss the opinion of the top American military officer, but he also badly misstates Iranian political dynamics.

http://thinkprogress.org/security

by Guest Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:28 am

One prominent Republican has demonstrated geopolitical expertise in the 21st Century. That Republican is not in the "race."

by Shirina Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:41 am

I don't think the American people will tolerate yet another war. Our soldiers have been at this for almost 10 years; the families of those soldiers have been at this for almost 10 years. If we go into Iran, or even support Israel if they make such a move, I'm sure everyone here in this country will be asking - who is next? North Korea? Will we see a second decade of war?

I am a little nervous about Iran having nuclear weapons. I would be lying if I said I wasn't. Not because I think Ahmadinejad is going to press the big red button, but because Ahmadinejad won't be in power forever, and Iran can produce some fairly radical anti-Western leaders. I'm sure many here are old enough to remember Ayatollah Khomeini and the student-led rebellion against the Shah. Any sane leader of Iran would never launch a nuclear strike against Israel or its allies - allies that have thousands of nukes.

But I fear that Iran could revitalize the game of nuclear brinksmanship seen during the Cold War - the Cuban Missile Crisis, Operation Able Archer, etc. Even more frightening is the prospect of Iran using nuclear weapons via proxy. In other words, giving or selling even a small nuclear device or dirty bomb to a terrorist organization which would gleefully set it off in London, New York, or Tel-Aviv without a moment's hesitation. Iran could easily shrug its shoulders and claim it had no knowledge, and it would be incredibly difficult to prove otherwise.

Despite these fears, however, America cannot monitor every nation and enforce a Pax Americana onto the rest of the world. Even if that was our government's goal, the American people are weary of being the world's policeman and we have no desire to engage in building an empire. We need to just leave Iran alone.

by oftenwrong Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:28 am

According to the BBC World Service today, the number of Iranian listeners has trebled in the past year. Presumably VoA tells a similar story.

Accurate Information is the best thing we could send to the Iranian Public.

Listeners in the UK can hear BBC World Service on Freeview – a digital platform providing TV, radio and interactive services through television – and also on DAB digital radio, digital satellite, cable, and online. To find out how to tune in to Freeview Channel 710 and other digital services, visit
bbc.co.uk/digital

by Stox 16 Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:09 am

Shirina wrote:I don't think the American people will tolerate yet another war. Our soldiers have been at this for almost 10 years; the families of those soldiers have been at this for almost 10 years. If we go into Iran, or even support Israel if they make such a move, I'm sure everyone here in this country will be asking - who is next? North Korea? Will we see a second decade of war?

I am a little nervous about Iran having nuclear weapons. I would be lying if I said I wasn't. Not because I think Ahmadinejad is going to press the big red button, but because Ahmadinejad won't be in power forever, and Iran can produce some fairly radical anti-Western leaders. I'm sure many here are old enough to remember Ayatollah Khomeini and the student-led rebellion against the Shah. Any sane leader of Iran would never launch a nuclear strike against Israel or its allies - allies that have thousands of nukes.

But I fear that Iran could revitalize the game of nuclear brinksmanship seen during the Cold War - the Cuban Missile Crisis, Operation Able Archer, etc. Even more frightening is the prospect of Iran using nuclear weapons via proxy. In other words, giving or selling even a small nuclear device or dirty bomb to a terrorist organization which would gleefully set it off in London, New York, or Tel-Aviv without a moment's hesitation. Iran could easily shrug its shoulders and claim it had no knowledge, and it would be incredibly difficult to prove otherwise.

Despite these fears, however, America cannot monitor every nation and enforce a Pax Americana onto the rest of the world. Even if that was our government's goal, the American people are weary of being the world's policeman and we have no desire to engage in building an empire. We need to just leave Iran alone.

a fair summary, as I happen to agree that most American's are very weary of there role of world policemen....who can blame them either...its a thank less job

by Sponsored content