Au contraire...when did I say that the Demopublicans ever did anything against Iran? (Don't count Reagan, because back then, they were known as "Republicans," and we all know that breed died out back in the 90's)

Neither of those useless major parties will do anything until Iran actually proves it has nuclear weapon capability, either by use or flaunt. However, if you were to ask which of those two parties would be willing to confront Iran, then I would have to say that the Commucrats haven't been known as "surrender monkeys" for nothing. But that only means that the Demopublicans would be more inclined to show force.

Well of course you would. Your choice stings less than mine does. Even if it really doesn't apply, "realistic" doesn't necessarily factor in. Your choice makes you feel better.

You're using your knowledge and point of view and applying it to their situation. You're assuming they'll think the same way you do. You may be correct, but why gamble? The stakes are far too high.

They already have repressive control of their own nation. They've stated they want more power. They've shown they want more in words and actions. They're working on a weapon that will give them yet more power at the expense of millions of innocent lives. When are you willing to stand up and tell them to stop?

Until Iraq, that was true. Now things have changed.

What evidence do you have that shows Iran gives a rip about international opinion or response? They've shown nothing but contempt for the rest of the world as of now. International response is against them now, but there's no effect on Iranian behavior. (Yes, we all know the UN is a paper tiger, but that's an issue for another thread.)

The important factor to keep in mind is the fact that these leaders (Iranian) are not politically driven. They are primarily driven by their extreme view of religion, and how they will impose it on the rest of the world. Your previous comparisons to European leaders having to deal with nuclear destruction was a perfectly good rationale when applied to a political ideology... communism.

This is something entirely different. It's about a fanatical belief that they are put on this planet to bring war on the west and cause the 12th Imam to appear.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

That would, by definition, be the way logic works, wouldn't it?

There's a difference between your average suicidal fanatic warrior and your average fanatical political leader who is willing to send suicidal warriors to their doom. History shows that leaders are willing to throw the lives of their follows away but will stop short of committing suicide themselves.

And why gamble? How about because the alternative is a no-win situation. Negotiation and diplomacy combined with building anti-missile systems in Europe and beefing up threats against Iran should they try anything will at least give us predictable results. If we bomb them or invade, all bets are off. They can make us regret it, I can personally think of a number of ways that war with Iran would be bad for everyone in the world.

Yes, but they want to survive to have that power. The Iranian leaders have been nothing but pragmatic when it comes to their international policy. They support whatever benefits their goal of becoming the main poltical power in the region. Remember: Legacy of the Persian People, is the number one concern.

No, they are working on a weapon that will give them more power by putting them on the same level as the first world and giving them more weight in their political glove. If they kill anyone with a nuke anywhere, they will all the killed, thus negating any power that they might have gained.

I am willing to stand up and tell them to stop. But I also acknowledge that just telling them to stop won't do anything. The difference between me and the Hawks like you are that I'm not willing to go to war when diplomacy doesn't work. Unless, that is, they start the fighting first.

Why has it changed at all?

To the Iranians what is happening in Iraq is just the next step in their realization of political power in the region. Hizbollah in Lebanon and Revolutionary Guards supported insurgents and militias are just extentions and projections of Iranian power and influence in the region. They are playing a game against the US for dominance, military and politically, in the Middle East. It's not that different from the Great Game played by Russia and Britain in central Asia in the 1800's.

Bottom Line: Terrorists and Guerillas are as much tools of Iranian foreign interests as Carriers, Cruise Missiles, and aid packages are to US policy.

When I said "international response" to a nuclear attack by Iran, I meant a NATO or Israeli retaliatory strike. I didn't mean sanctions or air strikes, I meant reducing Iran to rubble. That's the kind of response Iran can expect if they launch or give a nuke to terrorists.

You say that there has been no international response, but when was the last time you saw a nation treat Iran seriously and not like an outsider? When was the last time a major player on the world stage did anything truly friendly with them?

The Iranians are being oustracized by the rest of the world. No one wants to be associated with them. I would call that a response. The fact that its not having any visible results means that they are putting up a smoke screen but there have already been reports of Ahmandenijad's (sp?) increasing unpopularity with the clerics and the economic impact of the sanctions on Iran.

You make it seem like politics and religion are mutually exclusive. They aren't. If you look at the historical leaders of religiously fundamentalist regimes, they are just as politically driven and motivated as any other world leader, even though all of their propaganda is religiously related. The Iranian clerics are no different. Religion may be a strong influence on them as people, but religion is just another tool to them as politicians and leaders.

By the way, I have never heard any news reports of Islamic clerics seeking to impose Islam on the rest of the world. Most of the time they are talking about getting western influences out of Islam. And frankly I agree. If they want to live in the dark ages, that's none of our business.

And at the time, most of the Hawkish politicians said that Communists believed that communism and democracy couldn't exist together and that they were constantly planning for an impending attack. The propaganda against the "bloodthirsty" Eastern Bloc then isn't all that different from what I hear from the Hawks about Iran now.

Where have any of the Clerics or the Iranian prez said this? They always talk about expanding Iranian influence and power and their actions reflect this. There is no proof that their only intention is to cause an apocalyptic war. They want power. They don't want to die before they benefit from it.

Maybe Europeans knows something we don't.

__________________
the memories of a man in his old age
are the deeds of a man in his prime

roger waters

MAD will hold.

The greatest danger that an Iranian nuclear weapon (if they develop one) will present is that by negating Israel`s nuclear advantage the risk of conventional warfare is markedly increased.

I don`t see how they can be stopped from develping a nuclear weapon if that is their ambition. I don`t believe air strikes could do more than delay the inevitable.

With Iraq providing a sobering illustrations to Iran, of what can happen to US enemies who do not have a credible deterrant, and to the West, of the difficulties of `regime change` by force it seems Bush`s policies have only exacerbated the problem.

It`s a gamble whichever way you play it.

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

Fist of all I must declare that I am against nuclear weapons. On the other hand, why USA must decide the countries that they can use or produce nuclear weapons? Why USA must have such kind of weapons?

__________________
EAM-ELAS-MELIGALAS

Maybe because we are the #1 country in the world? Maybe because when another country looks for handouts, it opens it's greedy little palms towards the USA? Maybe because the USA has made it a habit of bailing out countries that have been agressively taken over since WWI?

As far as why the US can have nukes, it's because we haven't threatened to sell them to volatile groups or countries. We've never shown aggression to another country, unless that country has shown aggression to us, or our allies first.

Boogie throwing his full wieght behind the principle of `Might is Right`.

(*)(*)(*)(*) those greedy, greedy hungry folk.....but since other nations are far more generous in the amount of aid they give in relation to GDP I`m not sure raising international aid futhers your argument.

It depends what you call `bailing out`. Was supplying arms to the Taliban for their fight against the Soviet backed government `bailing out` or supporting terrorism?

Ahem...North Korea...light-water reactors....ring a bell?

LMAO.

RloaD = I think Boogie`s first reason is the honest one.

America uses its clout because it has clout. Same as any nation state would, I suppose.

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

Why does the UK have the right to Nuclear Weapons and not Germany?


Pull your head out of your I hate America ass and figure it out.

As to DUH2. I as a European have no problem with Germany having nukes. The Germans would able to produce them fairly rapidly if the need arises.

I personally would prefer Iran not to possess atomic weapons, but I'm not going to run around hysterically about it. Seriously are Americans afraid of everything? If its not Iraq's mythical WMD, its the US-conquering danger of Cuba's Evil Legions of Doom.

Are you ignoring the giant bear beside us Europeans.
Ya'know the nuclear armed authoritarian nation with a large field army with the worlds largest land mass. That has former KGB member and a tendency to kill its enemies.
Silly me for thinking of this nation as danger to Europe and not of the nation barely in weapons range, not in range of launching a field army against us and little historical grudge against us. Plus theres well armed nations between us and them. Such as Israel (who don't like them much), Turkey (who don't like Shia's much), Iraq (where your forces are) and the aforementioned nuclear armed bear.

(How bout the fact Pakistan and North Korea have WMD. There unstable (with lots of former Taliban supporters) in the first case, and crazy in the second.)

And Secondly if I were an Iranian citizen i'd be demanding the leaders build these weapons. What with crazy rogue nations invading other countries and all.

__________________
"Better to die on you feet than live on your knees" - Emilio Zapata