Michael

I don't see what the Pakistani and Indian situation reflect what we are talking about. I will let it be for now and concentrate on something else you said.

In reference to the US having nukes that answer is yes. Them using it is also true and and twice for that matter.

Nevertheless, for the sake of the argument whether someone has used a nuke or not it doesn't mean anything. I don't think the US is dumb enough, especially the way the situation is in the world, for them to use or even threaten to use nukes because it would just turn everyone against them. Not only that because they have used nukes twice in the history of warefare how wold they constitute as a threat?


I know I know...it seems like everyone is against the US; says they like them but really don't; or truly believe in their neo-conservative views.

Curb Zone

 

The Artist

the pakistan india thing that i brought up shows that far from all country with nukes (accepted by the rest of the world) matches those qualifications you wrote in your previous post..

PS
Well i heard something about a nuke attack with some kind of new nuke that goes underground and blasts off there.. didnt the US gov say that all possibilitys are open if they dont stop making nuclear power..

But still i see your point and i aint saying that its wrong..but i stand by my previous statement .. either everyone should be allowed to have em.. or no one..

Michael

Well Artist I respect your opinion but I have to stand by mine--there are some people(countries) that cannot have certain things. Period.

In reference to the US saying that all options are available I think that is correct. Nevertheless, like you said, I don't think that the US will submit themselves to such actions. They have their hands full with what they are doing in Iraq. I doubt it would be smart for them to go into Iran. But hey you never know!

Mohi

I just want to add something - in the case of India and Pakistan, for years they have been at each other and by both nations being equal in military capabilities, they are able to keep the balance.

This was the case during the cold war as well. In the case of Iran, the Iranian president has said things which no one agrees with (including the Iranian leadership council) but so has President Bush.

Israel also posses nuclear weapons, so if Iran gets them too then balance will be restored and clears the way for talks of equals and peace easier to achieve.

Currently there is no balance in the Middle East in relation to Israel, both militarily and Western political support.

Remember one major point as well. Geographically Iran and Israel are extremely close to one another. Any nuclear strike by either will come back in a major way due to the radioactive windfall.

Another suggestion is make Israel nuclear free and the problem is solved. Why is that option not being considered?

Hypersonic

Lets not get excited worot - the US has every right to voice it's concerns - just like any other country ....the United Nations is highly concerned about Iran's nuclear program - funny how many of the same people who criticize the US for ignoring UN conventions (with regard to Iraq) defend Iran when it does the same thing.

Hypersonic

Exactly BMWFREAK - (I hadn't read this post before submitting my previous post) - we are thinking along similar lines here.

Michael

Woah! ALright. Let me say first and foremost I do not like Bush, but like I have said over and over again I don't think unfounded comments are necessary. Unless you think Osama Bin Laden is the best thing since sliced bread, then nothing that President Bush has said compares to what the President of Iran has said. Period. I don't think Bush has ever said any comment in reference to getting rid of a ethnic group, race, or a country.


I don't think there will be any balance. Israel is not threatening anyone with those Nukes and if there were I would condemn that. I don't think that Iran having nuclear weapons will restore some balance, however. You need to understand that the US has Israel by a leesh. They will not tolerate Israel moving to make a Nuclear attack. So Israel having nukes is pointless, which brings me to my next point.


I agree with you. Israel doesn't need nukes and they have them.

Osnabrueck

I'm not going to bat for Isreal by any means, but there's some ovbious reasons why it's dangerous for Iran to get its hands on nukes.

Most angles have already been covered in this thread but in a nutshell, Iran is doing the rogue nation routine. If you couple that with anti-west sentiment fueled by radical theocratic elements that would love nothing less than mushroom clouds over New York and Tel Aviv, there's good justification for paranoia.

Nobody in the Bush regime has intimated military confrontation - that's just been projected by people and groups who don't know better. However, with Iran doing the rope-a-dope "Sure thing, we'll do that... oh and F-you" act one can only paint a grim picture of where we're headed.

China and Russia are being passively antagonistic. Europe needs to balls up and become more proactive.

Michael

IMO this is correct.

The Artist

so the question is..
should there be a war just cause Iran refuses UN folks to check out their nuclear development..??

i think it seems like a high price to pay..what if the US almost destroys half of iran and kill alot of their own and others.. and then find out..that ohh they where not making nukes.. what then??

a such senario will play out very badly for the US.. will they fall back on the fact that its not their fault..and its the iranians cause they didnt let UN ppl in??.. will they justify the war with that reason??..
and if so will anyone buy that BS??

Curb Zone