More Iran Sanctions?

[+and-then]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/15/us-europe-eye-risky-unprecedented-penalty-for-iran-over-pursuit-nuclear-weapons/

This might work to avert war but it could also hurt the world's economy. Which is more important to the majority?

[wittyusernamefailed]

Well besides the issue of damaging the neutrality of a majority international "bank"; the main problem with slapping more sanctions on Iran is that it will not be hurting the right people quickly enough. Yes the Iran Government will begin to feel the pinch, but the economic meltdown will hurt the avg person on the street far quicker, thus making them hate the west while actually strengthening the regime in their own country.I think that at this point sanctions and such things are bound to fail.

As long as Iran is ruled by an unpopular theocracy that is holding on by military force and fear; and is more afraid of loosing power to revolution than playing chicken with the world. As long as such things hold true negotiations and logic will prove fruitless, and the world will inevitably be drawn to war, much in the way we were drawn into war with Germany in WW2

Edited February 15, 2012 by wittyusernamefailed

[+and-then]

Well besides the issue of damaging the neutrality of a majority international "bank"; the main problem with slapping more sanctions on Iran is that it will not be hurting the right people quickly enough. Yes the Iran Government will begin to feel the pinch, but the economic meltdown will hurt the avg person on the street far quicker, thus making them hate the west while actually strengthening the regime in their own country.I think that at this point sanctions and such things are bound to fail.

As long as Iran is ruled by an unpopular theocracy that is holding on by military force and fear; and is more afraid of loosing power to revolution than playing chicken with the world. As long as such things hold true negotiations and logic will prove fruitless, and the world will inevitably be drawn to war, much in the way we were drawn into war with Germany in WW2

Compelling the average people to rise up may be the last card prior to bombs falling. Unfortunately they will be scourged either way. Status Quo almost guarantees a future war in the region between nuclear powers. Saudis have already publicly spoken of buying a nuke until they can build their own. Iran has offered the fuel cycle to any African country with uranium deposits to trade...

Ultimately the only real hope is that the average citizens will overthrow the Ayatollahs.

[Yamato]

Compelling the average people to rise up may be the last card prior to bombs falling. Unfortunately they will be scourged either way. Status Quo almost guarantees a future war in the region between nuclear powers. Saudis have already publicly spoken of buying a nuke until they can build their own. Iran has offered the fuel cycle to any African country with uranium deposits to trade...

Ultimately the only real hope is that the average citizens will overthrow the Ayatollahs.

If Iran believes that an Israeli attack is an imminent threat, shouldn't they preemptively attack Israel? Or is the logic only applicable to what you find politically tenable?

If I knew that any foreign power was going to bomb my country unless I rose up against my own government, that would be the best cure for rebellion I can think of. Logic that can't be applied both ways is best not believed in.

Playing game theory in this Sunni vs. Shi'ite monkey business is yet another stupid mistake this state of ours can't stop making when it comes to the drama of the Middle East. I'd gladly pay $10/gallon for gasoline if I could cut the oil pipeline in two for good because as things stand I'll be paying those $10 bills to Communists in China for nothing but a failed state and half a world of hate.

Sanctions kill children they don't stop nuclear programs. Wake up, heartless partisans. The dirty democrats are at it again. 500,000 more dead kids are still "worth it".

[+and-then]

If Iran believes that an Israeli attack is an imminent threat, shouldn't they preemptively attack Israel? Or is the logic only applicable to what you find politically tenable?

If I knew that any foreign power was going to bomb my country unless I rose up against my own government, that would be the best cure for rebellion I can think of. Logic that can't be applied both ways is best not believed in.

Playing game theory in this Sunni vs. Shi'ite monkey business is yet another stupid mistake this state of ours can't stop making when it comes to the drama of the Middle East. I'd gladly pay $10/gallon for gasoline if I could cut the oil pipeline in two for good because as things stand I'll be paying those $10 bills to Communists in China for nothing but a failed state and half a world of hate.

Sanctions kill children they don't stop nuclear programs. Wake up, heartless partisans. The dirty democrats are at it again. 500,000 more dead kids are still "worth it".

Half million? Why not 2 or 3 million? It's no more arbitrary or silly a number to pull out of the aether. The Iran problem will be dealt with now or later. It is an issue of one nation clamoring for raw power at the expense of the rest of the world. The weakness demonstrated by our current administration (and the prior one) has fed the beast and now it can't be stopped. I happen to agree that sanctions hurt the wrong people and will not work. But doing nothing assures a Theocracy in the region with nukes. It assures more proliferation. It guarantees greater instability.

Isolating from the region and acting as though we'd suffer no consequences from a nuclear Iran is silly. It's like arguing for the "right" of an actively belligerent neighbor to own firearms. Noble in theory but should keep rational neighbors sleeping with one eye open.

Only the Iranians can stop their government from pursuing nukes. They are an imprisoned people just now but if the IRGC and the Basijj are pounded into disarray, who knows what the people might be inspired to do? Especially if aiding them with secure communications/arms while bombing the bases of the aforementioned.

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

From what i read this morning Obama's cabinet are already doubting that sanctions will work and some are pushing for air strikes either by the US or Isreal.

Maybe this was always in mind,with the removal of US troops from Iraq.

Personally speaking,i think the US have got it wrong again and have overplayed the Nuclear Threat from Iraq.

Edited February 18, 2012 by shaddow134

[ExpandMyMind]

Yamato your reasoning is spot on. It always makes me giggle watching the double standards being applied to These types of situations. According to and then's own logic, and Iranian attack on Israel would be entirely justified. Just giggled a bit there again, sorry.

Well, I'm still waiting for and then's proof that the Iranians are building the bomb. He seems to have inside knowledge of some kind and to be honest I thought he would have informed the IAEA by now, or his own government as both have been struggling for years to find ANY proof whatsoever. It would be An epic find if I'm being honest because ALL nuclear material in Iran is completely accounted for and each nuclear site in Iran is inspected regularly - including furrow deep in the mountain (15 times they've inspected that one) Maybe they've discovered bow to turn tungsten into weapons grade uranium? That would be an achievement and a half.

An informative article for anyone interested and who hasn't read my countless posts over the years on the subject: http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/01/11/clinton-revives-dubious-charge-of-covert-iranian-nuclear-site/

[ExpandMyMind]

And then, if you think the number 'half a million' is silly then you may want to go and educate yourself on the direct effects of the sanctions and embargoes on Iraq after the first Gulf war. Horrendous is the only way to describe our governments' actions, not only there but all around the world. Literally speaking we are by far the worst and most active terrorists in the world. Our governments, I should say.

You could also have a look at the truly devastating effects on civilians that the North Korea sanctions have had since the fall of the Soviet Union. We truly have a cheek to call al' Qaeda. Terrorists. That's like Ted Bundy calling Charles Manson a murderer. Lol.

[sam12six]

I don't know what Iran's problem is. If Iran would just grant all her oil rights to Israel and have her citizens convert to Christianity, everyone would get along fine, but noooooo - they insist on preparing to defend themselves against a war run-up that is virtually identical to one they saw a decade ago that resulted in the complete devastation of a neighboring nation.

In the mean time, we (the good guys) will continue to suggest arming insurgents to fight against their government while we demonize Iran for its state sponsored terrorism. There's no evidence I'm aware of that Iran is trying to get a nuke, but if they are, WHO THE HELL COULD BLAME THEM?!?

Our (by which I mean a fair percentage of Americans and Israelis) reaction to Iran's reaction to our provocation reminds me of being a kid in school when a bully would lunge at someone then pull up and if they threw their hands up to defend themselves would say, "What's wrong? Scared? You want to fight? Is that why you're putting your hands up? If you're looking for an ass-kicking, I'll be happy to give it to you..."

[ExpandMyMind]

Awesome post sam

[Kryso]

I don't know what Iran's problem is. If Iran would just grant all her oil rights to Israel and have her citizens convert to Christianity, everyone would get along fine, but noooooo - they insist on preparing to defend themselves against a war run-up that is virtually identical to one they saw a decade ago that resulted in the complete devastation of a neighboring nation.

If only everyone could see this. Maybe a few million sheets dropped over cities would work?

I like your thinking.

[+and-then]

You guys remind me of the Statler and Waldorf muppet comedy team. The two old guys in the balconey who trash the efforts of everyone on the stage.

The proof I have that Iran is actively pursuing a bomb is that the world community is convinced enough to be risking war to stop them. To a person with an open mind that should be a valid point. After many discussions with YAMEX et.al. I have concluded that your bias against Israel is greater than my bias for it. That's your right and I have no problem with it but both of you are foolish for justifying a nuclear Iran. And that IS what you're doing. You'll probably smile when the news of an Iranian bomb test is announced. But I predict that this issue will come home to bite all of us on the *ss some day soon if they are allowed to build and then become a Theocratic bully in the region. An arms race will begin immediately so Iran will only have a brief window to impose their will and they may just overplay and miscalculate.

I'm glad you have such great concern for the Iraqi and Iranian children. Haven't heard much from either of you about the Syrian children being butchered though. Maybe that's because America can't be vilified for it.

[stevewinn]

Yamato your reasoning is spot on. It always makes me giggle watching the double standards being applied to These types of situations. According to and then's own logic, and Iranian attack on Israel would be entirely justified. Just giggled a bit there again, sorry.

Well, I'm still waiting for and then's proof that the Iranians are building the bomb. He seems to have inside knowledge of some kind and to be honest I thought he would have informed the IAEA by now, or his own government as both have been struggling for years to find ANY proof whatsoever. It would be An epic find if I'm being honest because ALL nuclear material in Iran is completely accounted for and each nuclear site in Iran is inspected regularly - including furrow deep in the mountain (15 times they've inspected that one) Maybe they've discovered bow to turn tungsten into weapons grade uranium? That would be an achievement and a half.

An informative article for anyone interested and who hasn't read my countless posts over the years on the subject: http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/01/11/clinton-revives-dubious-charge-of-covert-iranian-nuclear-site/

taken from the latest IAEA report.

K. Summary

52. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear

facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the

necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to

provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and

therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

53. The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear

programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency

finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities

relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the

end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be

ongoing.

54. Given the concerns identified above, Iran is requested to engage substantively with the Agency

without delay for the purpose of providing clarifications regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s

nuclear programme as identified in the Annex to this report.

55. The Agency is working with Iran with a view to resolving the discrepancy identified during the

recent PIV at JHL.

56. The Director General urges Iran, as required in the binding resolutions of the Board of Governors and

mandatory Security Council resolutions, to take steps towards the full implementation of its Safeguards

Agreement and its other obligations, including: implementation of the provisions of its Additional

Protocol; implementation of the modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to its

Safeguards Agreement; suspension of enrichment related activities; suspension of heavy water related

activities; and, as referred to above, addressing the Agency’s serious concerns about possible military

dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, in order to establish international confidence in the exclusively

peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

57. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.

31. Since its visit to the Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP) on 17 August 2011, the Agency, in a

letter to Iran dated 20 October 2011, requested further access to HWPP. The Agency has yet to receive a

reply to that letter, and is again relying on satellite imagery to monitor the status of HWPP. Based on

recent images, the HWPP appears to be in operation. To date, Iran has not provided the Agency access to

the heavy water stored at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in order to take samples.

G. Possible Military Dimensions

38. Previous reports by the Director General have identified outstanding issues related to possible

military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and actions required of Iran to resolve these.33 Since

2002, the Agency has become increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed

nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the

development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the Agency has regularly received new

information.

to avert war all Iran has to do is provide all the requested information. allow unlimited access to IAEA inspectors. instead of doing what they've been doing and continuing to do, which is playing ****ing games. throughout every IAEA report its clear Iran are not fully co-operating. if Iran's nuclear program was peaceful they'd be open and honest. just read the report.

[ExpandMyMind]

You fail to understand, Steve, that they are not legally obliged to do any such thing. It is a matter of principle for the Iranians that they are being ordered (harrassed, in truth) to go above and beyond what is asked of them as a signatory of the NPT. All the while the main instigator of this nonsense is a violent country that itself has an arsenal of nuclear weapons and flat out refuses to either sign the NPT (unlike other nuclear counties barring India and Pakistan - which, trust me, I have a problem with. Especially seeing as, along with the paranoid Israelis, are the two most likely to use them) or allow inspectors in. It's no wonder iran are telling the western [practically] controlled leader of the IAEA to eff off.

Steve, I would love you to name one single thing that Iran have done that is in violation of the NPT. One. Single. Thing. They have already went well above and beyond what they are requires but Still they are having the **** ripped right out of them.

And then, did you find that evidence then? Mind pming me it?

Edited February 18, 2012 by expandmymind

[+and-then]

You fail to understand, Steve, that they are not legally obliged to do any such thing. It is a matter of principle for the Iranians that they are being ordered (harrassed, in truth) to go above and beyond what is asked of them as a signatory of the NPT. All the while the main instigator of this nonsense is a violent country that itself has an arsenal of nuclear weapons and flat out refuses to either sign the NPT (unlike other nuclear counties barring India and Pakistan - which, trust me, I have a problem with. Especially seeing as, along with the paranoid Israelis, are the two most likely to use them) or allow inspectors in. It's no wonder iran are telling the western [practically] controlled leader of the IAEA to eff off.

Steve, I would love you to name one single thing that Iran have done that is in violation of the NPT. One. Single. Thing. They have already went well above and beyond what they are requires but Still they are having the **** ripped right out of them.

And then, did you find that evidence then? Mind pming me it?

I have no such evidence. All I have are opinions based on what I can see and hear in the media. Unless you are privy to the leadership in Iran I suspect your sources are similar. As I pointed out earlier, I feel no need to convince someone who's in the bag for the evil dictators in Iran. I don't understand people who childishly condone Iran in it's spreading of terror world wide. Before you get feeling too smug and safe in your hometown just remember that you are already in range of their missiles. It must be grand for you to sit on your high perch and judge the world as though your opinion actually mattered in the whole business. We are judged by the company we keep Ex. Boot licking for ruthless dictators isn't much of a claim to honor in the real world.

[sam12six]

You guys remind me of the Statler and Waldorf muppet comedy team. The two old guys in the balconey who trash the efforts of everyone on the stage.

The proof I have that Iran is actively pursuing a bomb is that the world community is convinced enough to be risking war to stop them. To a person with an open mind that should be a valid point.

The exact same valid point that led to attacking Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction they were collecting. Much of the world community was willing to risk war to stop them and they did - lucky for us they saved everyone from those imaginary weapons. Now, we've got a (at this point) hypothetical nuclear weapon in Iran much of the world is willing to start a war over. Some of us would just like to see some evidence as opposed to "Well, lots of other people think they're trying to get one."

After many discussions with YAMEX et.al. I have concluded that your bias against Israel is greater than my bias for it. That's your right and I have no problem with it but both of you are foolish for justifying a nuclear Iran. And that IS what you're doing. You'll probably smile when the news of an Iranian bomb test is announced. But I predict that this issue will come home to bite all of us on the *ss some day soon if they are allowed to build and then become a Theocratic bully in the region. An arms race will begin immediately so Iran will only have a brief window to impose their will and they may just overplay and miscalculate.

To date, the biggest deterrent to nations being openly attacked by other nations is a nuke. The cold war didn't become a hot war because everyone involved was worried that they'd destroy the world if the line got crossed. Now nations that don't have nukes? Iraq again comes to mind.

As I said, I know of no evidence for Iran seeking a nuke, but the accusation's not really one they can fight. It's like someone saying, "You robbed that bank! Give the money back." If you didn't actually rob the bank, there's not much you can do except allow a search (which Iran has done by complying with the non-proliferation guidelines). Now, what are you supposed to do when the lunatic survivalist next door says, "You've got 3 days to give back the money or I'm kicking in your door and killing you!"?

The US has already launched a devastating attack on a false premise. I worry about how the rest of the (non English as an official language) world would react to another. The truth is we've been the big dog on the block, walking around the neighborhood eating others' food since WWII, but it's only recently that we've started openly attacking everyone. Assuming Israel and the US attack Iran and it DOESN'T start WWIII, who's next? Israel doesn't like Egypt much. Turkey's an ally, but still. Pakistan has been getting uppity about our dropping bombs on their sovereign land - maybe we should remind them who's the boss.

I'm far from a pacifist and have no problem with war. I just fancy myself not an idiot either and do have a problem with a war we can't afford that will only ratchet up the hate for us when the only justification for the war is "Imagine what they might do."

I'm glad you have such great concern for the Iraqi and Iranian children. Haven't heard much from either of you about the Syrian children being butchered though. Maybe that's because America can't be vilified for it.

I personally don't know that much about what's going on in Syria, but I don't think it strongly involves the US (beyond the general attitude that we own the world and EVERYTHING is our business), therefore I don't have any strong opinions on the subject.

I don't understand people who childishly condone Iran in it's spreading of terror world wide.

And this:

Only the Iranians can stop their government from pursuing nukes. They are an imprisoned people just now but if the IRGC and the Basijj are pounded into disarray, who knows what the people might be inspired to do? Especially if aiding them with secure communications/arms while bombing the bases of the aforementioned.

Is this not condoning the spread of terror against Iran? Encouraging and supporting private citizens to take up arms and attempt to destabilize the enemy isn't the same thing you're accusing Iran of?

[ninjadude]

the world community ISRAEL is convinced enough to be risking war to stop them.

There. Fixed that for you.

[ninjadude]

to avert war all Iran has to do is provide all the requested information. allow unlimited access to IAEA inspectors. instead of doing what they've been doing and continuing to do, which is playing ****ing games. throughout every IAEA report its clear Iran are not fully co-operating. if Iran's nuclear program was peaceful they'd be open and honest. just read the report.

OH is that all? You can change Iran to Iraq and go back in time a decade and nothing has changed.

[+and-then]

The exact same valid point that led to attacking Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction they were collecting. Much of the world community was willing to risk war to stop them and they did - lucky for us they saved everyone from those imaginary weapons. Now, we've got a (at this point) hypothetical nuclear weapon in Iran much of the world is willing to start a war over. Some of us would just like to see some evidence as opposed to "Well, lots of other people think they're trying to get one."

To date, the biggest deterrent to nations being openly attacked by other nations is a nuke. The cold war didn't become a hot war because everyone involved was worried that they'd destroy the world if the line got crossed. Now nations that don't have nukes? Iraq again comes to mind.

As I said, I know of no evidence for Iran seeking a nuke, but the accusation's not really one they can fight. It's like someone saying, "You robbed that bank! Give the money back." If you didn't actually rob the bank, there's not much you can do except allow a search (which Iran has done by complying with the non-proliferation guidelines). Now, what are you supposed to do when the lunatic survivalist next door says, "You've got 3 days to give back the money or I'm kicking in your door and killing you!"?

The US has already launched a devastating attack on a false premise. I worry about how the rest of the (non English as an official language) world would react to another. The truth is we've been the big dog on the block, walking around the neighborhood eating others' food since WWII, but it's only recently that we've started openly attacking everyone. Assuming Israel and the US attack Iran and it DOESN'T start WWIII, who's next? Israel doesn't like Egypt much. Turkey's an ally, but still. Pakistan has been getting uppity about our dropping bombs on their sovereign land - maybe we should remind them who's the boss.

I'm far from a pacifist and have no problem with war. I just fancy myself not an idiot either and do have a problem with a war we can't afford that will only ratchet up the hate for us when the only justification for the war is "Imagine what they might do."

I personally don't know that much about what's going on in Syria, but I don't think it strongly involves the US (beyond the general attitude that we own the world and EVERYTHING is our business), therefore I don't have any strong opinions on the subject.

And this:

Is this not condoning the spread of terror against Iran? Encouraging and supporting private citizens to take up arms and attempt to destabilize the enemy isn't the same thing you're accusing Iran of?

Obviously the two are equivalent in your eyes. Mores the pity. You can rage on about the injustices against Iran and paint them as victim but the proof of your dogma will be in your opinions the day after they test a bomb. And you, like YAMEX and a couple others here I predict will be just fine with the announcement. Unbelievably childish IMO.

[sam12six]

Obviously the two are equivalent in your eyes. Mores the pity. You can rage on about the injustices against Iran and paint them as victim but the proof of your dogma will be in your opinions the day after they test a bomb. And you, like YAMEX and a couple others here I predict will be just fine with the announcement. Unbelievably childish IMO.

First, where's the dogma? I've said we had a huge scare-mongering campaign alleging that we needed to attack someone who was on the verge of hurting us with weapons of mass destruction (that later turned out to be imaginary). Did we not? I've said the current beating of the war drums against another nation based on speculation is remarkably similar. Is it not?

I'll tell you my opinion now. No testing necessary: More power to 'em!!

We have nukes. Lots of other countries have nukes. There's only one country I know of who has nukes but won't sign the treaty regulating them. Iran HAS signed and there's no evidence they're violating it.

And yes - the two are equivalent in my eyes. The accusation that Iran is bad because it trains and arms insurgents (which I believe) while suggesting doing the same to them would be a good thing is what's childish and hypocritical. While no one non-affiliated is sure, rumor has it that our CIA's entire raison d'etre is to destabilize other countries in this way. If someone did it to us, we'd call it terrorism.

As I said before, I have absolutely no problem with war. Scared of Muslims and want to kill a few? I don't care. If we want to conquer Iran and take her oil, fine by me. Let's just be honest about it and not pretend we're doing it because we're worried that they're on the verge of being able to conquer us.

I'd rather we as a nation weren't bullies, but if we are - meh. It's just that the implication that it's self defense is cowardly.

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

Obviously the two are equivalent in your eyes. Mores the pity. You can rage on about the injustices against Iran and paint them as victim but the proof of your dogma will be in your opinions the day after they test a bomb. And you, like YAMEX and a couple others here I predict will be just fine with the announcement. Unbelievably childish IMO.

Tell that one to the families of the dead servicemen killed in Iraq based on the premise that Saddam was hoarding WMD'S another intelligence failure on the part of the US.

[+and-then]

First, where's the dogma? I've said we had a huge scare-mongering campaign alleging that we needed to attack someone who was on the verge of hurting us with weapons of mass destruction (that later turned out to be imaginary). Did we not? I've said the current beating of the war drums against another nation based on speculation is remarkably similar. Is it not?

I'll tell you my opinion now. No testing necessary: More power to 'em!!

We have nukes. Lots of other countries have nukes. There's only one country I know of who has nukes but won't sign the treaty regulating them. Iran HAS signed and there's no evidence they're violating it.

And yes - the two are equivalent in my eyes. The accusation that Iran is bad because it trains and arms insurgents (which I believe) while suggesting doing the same to them would be a good thing is what's childish and hypocritical. While no one non-affiliated is sure, rumor has it that our CIA's entire raison d'etre is to destabilize other countries in this way. If someone did it to us, we'd call it terrorism.

As I said before, I have absolutely no problem with war. Scared of Muslims and want to kill a few? I don't care. If we want to conquer Iran and take her oil, fine by me. Let's just be honest about it and not pretend we're doing it because we're worried that they're on the verge of being able to conquer us.

I'd rather we as a nation weren't bullies, but if we are - meh. It's just that the implication that it's self defense is cowardly.

Well, your honesty is refreshing. If it's childish and hypocritical to see a threat to my nation and speak out about it then - guilty as charged. In my opinion Iran is a danger to the world due to their obvious, self stated desire to proliferate. As well as the fact that Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt are already warming up in the bullpen. Treating these mullahs as though they are the Soviet leaders of the '70s is preposterous. Anyone who will not accept that is dangerously misguided IMO. And I don't think any of us have the option any longer to just look at the world and say screw it unless we are ready for the consequences and really just don't give a damn. In that instance then it's just fine I guess...no harm no foul and see ya on the other side

[sam12six]

Well, your honesty is refreshing. If it's childish and hypocritical to see a threat to my nation and speak out about it then - guilty as charged.

No, what's childish and hypocritical is to demonize a nation for allegedly doing something bad and also hold the opinion that OUR doing the exact same thing is morally good.

In my opinion Iran is a danger to the world due to their obvious, self stated desire to proliferate. As well as the fact that Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt are already warming up in the bullpen.

You could be right. Iran could be a danger to the world. That said, there's no actual evidence that they're planning to assault anyone. We, on the other hand, have attacked nation after nation in the last 4 decades or so, proving definitively that WE'RE a danger to the world. Maybe Vietnam was a threat to us even though the entire country is the size of a back yard in Texas. Maybe Iraq was on the verge of conquering the world before we dismantled their military in about 3 days. I just don't believe these things to be true.

Whether you're right or not though, we don't hold the moral high ground unless we only attack when there's evidence of an imminent threat as opposed to conjecture that the nation in question MIGHT become powerful enough to be a threat. As I said, I don't care if we're saints or sinners, but to act like sinners while claiming to be saints is cowardly.

Treating these mullahs as though they are the Soviet leaders of the '70s is preposterous. Anyone who will not accept that is dangerously misguided IMO.

Again, you could be right. On the other hand, there's no denying that in the pre-nuke world, a situation like that would have nearly inevitably resulted in open warfare. The fact that both the US and USSR were nuclear armed was enough deterrent to both sides to keep things to posturing as opposed to actual fighting. What I'm saying is that I believe our government doesn't want Iran to have nukes not because they're worried they'll be aimed at us, but because they're worried we won't have free reign to bully them if they actually can pose a serious threat.

And I don't think any of us have the option any longer to just look at the world and say screw it unless we are ready for the consequences and really just don't give a damn. In that instance then it's just fine I guess...no harm no foul and see ya on the other side

Here's the core of our difference of opinion. See, I believe interfering with (sanctions and sponsoring terrorism) or outright attacking a nation that has done nothing to us and for which there is no evidence that they plan to do anything to us is the ultimate example of saying screw the consequences. It's inciting the very thing you claim to want to prevent. It makes no sense to me.

[Lion6969]

Why is it such a problem for Iran to have nukes, whilst isreal has nuclear capability? Who has the moral authority to tell another sovereign state you can't have nukes, whilst holding a stock pile of nukes themselves. If Others cn have them how can you tell someone else they can't?

[ExpandMyMind]

Ah, so you, along with the rest of the world have no evidence. Lol.

This media you mention, would that be the same media of truth and justice that has been mass claiming that the only reason we all know about iran's forlow enrichment site is because of western intelligence, when Iran quite clearly released the info in a letter to the IAEA a full 4 days before the western announcement?(remember when the three stooges announced it as though they were exposing Iran to the world?) Or the same media who lied about The Iranian elections being fraudulent? Or the same one that neglects to mention any time it brings up iran's enrichment if uranium that brazil and turkey offered to enrich it for Iran, practically guaranteeing that they would not learn how to develop the bomb? You just keep believin' mate. This has sweet eff all to do with nuclear weapons. The same as Iraq had nothing to do with wmds or human rights.

The media's job in our countries, as well as other countries in the world, is to lie to us and distort the truth as q means to prepare us mentally for war. Tried and tested method and we rall for it hook line and sinker every time (at least most of us do).