What's to be done about Iran?

[Gawd]

Tell that to the American puppets in Iraq.

The American puppets who go to Tehran to get their orders, you mean?

Now you are just blood libeling the Iranians.

[Ian]

Tell that to the American puppets in Iraq.

The American puppets who go to Tehran to get their orders, you mean?

Now you are just blood libeling the Iranians.

And we have a Sarah Palin quote!

[sandinista]

So then give Iran the bomb.

Why is that a better solution than taking it away from Israel?

It's one or the other. Israel, the US, Russia etc give up their nukes or they have no right to ask other countries not to have them. I agree though, it would be better if all countries gave them up instead of all countries having them.

Sounds fair. But sometimes some things are more important than fairness. I'd rather not see the other side of a nuclear-capable Iran just for the sake of fully living up to the principle of being fair. Better to be blamed for hypocrisy without the disaster of a nuclear Iran than to be blamed for negligence after the fact.

"Since several countries already have them, that means everyone else who wants them should be able to do it." I'm so sick of that line of reasoning. All idealism, no realism.

So, whats more important? That "your" side has nukes and the other side doesn't? Makes a lot of sense Has nothing do do AT ALL with "idealism" and everything to do with realism. If the US, Israel, India etc have them who is to say that Iran cannot? What is idealistic about that? Nothing. Only one country has ever used the bomb, that is the country I trust the least.

[klr]

So then give Iran the bomb.

Why is that a better solution than taking it away from Israel?

It's one or the other. Israel, the US, Russia etc give up their nukes or they have no right to ask other countries not to have them. I agree though, it would be better if all countries gave them up instead of all countries having them.

Sounds fair. But sometimes some things are more important than fairness. I'd rather not see the other side of a nuclear-capable Iran just for the sake of fully living up to the principle of being fair. Better to be blamed for hypocrisy without the disaster of a nuclear Iran than to be blamed for negligence after the fact.

"Since several countries already have them, that means everyone else who wants them should be able to do it." I'm so sick of that line of reasoning. All idealism, no realism.

So, whats more important? That "your" side has nukes and the other side doesn't? Makes a lot of sense Has nothing do do AT ALL with "idealism" and everything to do with realism. If the US, Israel, India etc have them who is to say that Iran cannot? What is idealistic about that? Nothing. Only one country has ever used the bomb, that is the country I trust the least.

The least of what? The least of any country that has nuclear weapons, or the least of any country?

[Ian]

It's one or the other. Israel, the US, Russia etc give up their nukes or they have no right to ask other countries not to have them. I agree though, it would be better if all countries gave them up instead of all countries having them.

Sounds fair. But sometimes some things are more important than fairness. I'd rather not see the other side of a nuclear-capable Iran just for the sake of fully living up to the principle of being fair. Better to be blamed for hypocrisy without the disaster of a nuclear Iran than to be blamed for negligence after the fact.

"Since several countries already have them, that means everyone else who wants them should be able to do it." I'm so sick of that line of reasoning. All idealism, no realism.

So, whats more important? That "your" side has nukes and the other side doesn't? Makes a lot of sense Has nothing do do AT ALL with "idealism" and everything to do with realism. If the US, Israel, India etc have them who is to say that Iran cannot? What is idealistic about that? Nothing. Only one country has ever used the bomb, that is the country I trust the least.

I admit it's hard to make that argument to you since you know I'm an American. But I wasn't speaking on behalf of Uncle Sam. Pretend I live in Germany, or Saudi Arabia, or Iraq (all non-nuclear states) and read my post again. It's not about "my" side.

[DRSB]

I still prefer that Russia and US and only a couple of other nations have the toys rather that Russia and US plus everybody else. I absolutely am against everybody being in possession of the stuff which is not to say that I approve of Russia and US having it. See what I mean?

[sandinista]

The least of what? The least of any country that has nuclear weapons, or the least of any country?

Thought that was quite clear...I trust the US the least when it comes to actually using nuclear weapons.

I still prefer that Russia and US and only a couple of other nations have the toys rather that Russia and US plus everybody else. I absolutely am against everybody being in possession of the stuff which is not to say that I approve of Russia and US having it. See what I mean?

I do, I would prefer no one has nuclear weapons...but as long as some countries do that leaves the door open to others. To say Iran should not have nuclear weapons when you have them is hypocrisy of the greatest level.

[Santa_Claus]

Australia is the only Country that agreed to another Country dropping a nuke on it.

Gotta admire the Brits - simply for asking.

[Mallardz]

I read this has
"What's to be done about liam?"

Don't deal with me!

[Ironclad]

I would prefer no one has nuclear weapons...but as long as some countries do that leaves the door open to others. To say Iran should not have nuclear weapons when you have them is hypocrisy of the greatest level.

So? So what if it is hypocritical? Is that some kind of check-mate, killer quote? It's horse-dirt imo.
For a start you want, "no one to have nukes", but then, "the big bullies have them, so then should the bullied - it's fair". What crap! The US & Russia are making advancements (thank fuck, at long last) to the decommissioning of WMD. The last thing a rational world needs is a second wave of atomic arms race, especially within minor players ruled by firebrands.

Get a grip. A world without nukes HAS to start somewhere.

Personally, if they aren't busy elsewhere, I'd like to see Russia go in and halt Iran's ambition. Put it back 20 years, then leave. Not invade, just destroy and remove.

[sandinista]

I would prefer no one has nuclear weapons...but as long as some countries do that leaves the door open to others. To say Iran should not have nuclear weapons when you have them is hypocrisy of the greatest level.

So? So what if it is hypocritical? Is that some kind of check-mate, killer quote? It's horse-dirt imo.
For a start you want, "no one to have nukes", but then, "the big bullies have them, so then should the bullied - it's fair". What crap! The US & Russia are making advancements (thank fuck, at long last) to the decommissioning of WMD. The last thing a rational world needs is a second wave of atomic arms race, especially within minor players ruled by firebrands.

Get a grip. A world without nukes HAS to start somewhere.

Personally, if they aren't busy elsewhere, I'd like to see Russia go in and halt Iran's ambition. Put it back 20 years, then leave. Not invade, just destroy and remove.

let is start with the US stating it will decommission all of their nukes...has to start somewhere. firebrands? what crap. Like Israel and the US are not.

[Ironclad]

Not the roll-eyes simile, pu-leeze. Let's try and be original.

firebrands? what crap. Like Israel and the US are not.

Nur-nur ne nur-nur type play-park politics isn't going to solve anything. While Iran does not have a warhead, seems closer to manufacturing one, and wants one they should be halted.
Hypocritical? Who gives a shite! This is a nuclear bomb we're talking about.

[sandinista]

Not the roll-eyes simile, pu-leeze. Let's try and be original.

firebrands? what crap. Like Israel and the US are not.

Nur-nur ne nur-nur type play-park politics isn't going to solve anything. While Iran does not have a warhead, seems closer to manufacturing one, and wants one they should be halted.
Hypocritical? Who gives a shite! This is a nuclear bomb we're talking about.

Why should they be halted?

[Ian]

Not the roll-eyes simile, pu-leeze. Let's try and be original.

firebrands? what crap. Like Israel and the US are not.

Nur-nur ne nur-nur type play-park politics isn't going to solve anything. While Iran does not have a warhead, seems closer to manufacturing one, and wants one they should be halted.
Hypocritical? Who gives a shite! This is a nuclear bomb we're talking about.

Quite to the point. World leaders may not like to be called hypocrites, but hypocrisy isn't #1 on their list of priorities when it comes to issues like a nuclear Iran. There are worse allegations than hypocrisy.

[Ironclad]

Not the roll-eyes simile, pu-leeze. Let's try and be original.

firebrands? what crap. Like Israel and the US are not.

Nur-nur ne nur-nur type play-park politics isn't going to solve anything. While Iran does not have a warhead, seems closer to manufacturing one, and wants one they should be halted.
Hypocritical? Who gives a shite! This is a nuclear bomb we're talking about.

Quite to the point. World leaders may not like to be called hypocrites, but hypocrisy isn't #1 on their list of priorities when it comes to issues like a nuclear Iran. There are worse allegations than hypocrisy.

Exactly. Thanks Ian.

Why should they be halted?

:sighsm:
...or if I may...