[Clave]

But Israel is an evil regime....

[Rictor]

But we must apply an equal standard to all, thats the very basis of a society of law and justice.

You have to use facts, not your imagination, in determining who is trustworthy and who is not. Iran (as an Islamic State) has AFAIK not once ever attacked a foreign nation. Not once. Iraq actually started the Iran-Iraq war by invading, so that doesn't count.

Now, lets look at the US. Starting from the present day and working backwards, we have: Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Desert Storm, Grenada, Nicaragua, Lebanon, the Bay of Pig, Cambodia,  Vietnam, Korea etc etc.

And this is not counting the various proxy wars (Afghanistan in the 80s, Columbia) or support for genocidal wars (Indonesia) or coup d'etats (Venezuela, Haiti, Georgia, Chile, Iran, Guatemala etc) I'm sure I'm forgetting some, but this seems like plenty.

I have no reason at all to believe that Iran would attack another country, much less use nukes, because they have not shown any signs of external agression (not counting internal repression which I by no means support).

So, who do you trust more, a nation who in its current incarnation (and to the best of my knowledge, all previous incarnations) has been peaceful, or a nation who can't go 5 years without starting a war?

edit: the only agression I can think of is the taking of the hostages, who were later released and in any case, you have to expect some retribution after decades of the Shah's rule. Also, considering how Reagan & Co worked to prolong the suffering of the hostages for their own gain, I wouldn't exactly say all you Bushies have the moral high-ground.

[Liberator]

All that is well and good Rictor, but you forget that individuals within governments can act on their own without official sanction.  If Iran gets nukes, you can guarantee that shortly thereafter, Islamic terror organizations will have access to them.  It's chicken & egg time, my friend, and the chicken must be prevented from laying that egg.

[vyper]

How is that different from the US weapons industry from dictating American policy?

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Rictor
I have no reason at all to believe that Iran would attack another country, much less use nukes, because they have not shown any signs of external agression (not counting internal repression which I by no means support).

They have shown plenty of outside agression especially against Israel but they havnt acted on it... directly YET. indirectly they have "sponsored" many things.

And I do belive that just because one country isnt trustworthy enough not to have nukes dosnt mean they all are...

If you have a gun and your friend wants to check it out you trust him hes responsible... but if your kid or just some kid wants to... your not going to be stupid enough to give it to him.

[Bobboau]

so rictor, I'm guessing if some guy from North Korea were to run accross the border (assumeing this were remotely posable) and gave detailed information about the locations and defences of NK's nuclear program you'd consiter him a hero?

[Ace]

Originally posted by Liberator
All that is well and good Rictor, but you forget that individuals within governments can act on their own without official sanction.  If Iran gets nukes, you can guarantee that shortly thereafter, Islamic terror organizations will have access to them.  It's chicken & egg time, my friend, and the chicken must be prevented from laying that egg.

So by your logic it would be perfectly valid to annihilate the United States of America since they were the chicken to laid the egg of the current Iranian government, who then developed nuclear weapons, which then fell into the hands of terrorists.

Ohh wait, since the egg was already lain, I guess you're saying it'd be valid for me to build a time machine and then blow up the US in the late '70s before the Shah was plopped back in

[Bobboau]

or the british...

[vyper]

Hey now we had our failures but I'd say we did pretty well with Canada and India.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Liberator
All that is well and good Rictor, but you forget that individuals within governments can act on their own without official sanction.  If Iran gets nukes, you can guarantee that shortly thereafter, Islamic terror organizations will have access to them.  

Eh? Where do you get this crap from?
How on earth are you sure that the Iran would give nukes to the terrorists any more likely than USA or Israel would?

I'm much more affraid of those countries having such weapons than any other country in the world..

[Grey Wolf]

What we'll do is go back in time and kill Abraham. That should sort all of this out, since no Abraham means no Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

[Bobboau]

hell, just nuke Africa

[karajorma]

Bah. Amateur.

I say we find replicator and pour acid on it. End of all life on Earth.

[NGTM-1R]

Iran is rather...unstable. They fund terrorist groups, it's actually in their government's budget if you care to look. They make dire threats against the United States and the West in general on a regular basis. They aren't progressive in any possible sense of the word. You can decry conservativism here in the US all you want, but we're nothing compared to a nation under the perversion of Islamic law that Iran subscribes to.

They have never attacked anyone primarily because they'd never win. Either they'd get locked in a war of attrition, they'd get trounced, or they would fight for worthless territory. They could hold against Iraq; they could not take Iraqi territory. To the north was once the Soviet Union, and one would have to have been well and truly mad to attack them, even though nothing there was really worth taking to there. To the west there was nothing worth taking as well.

As for being trustworthy, Iran has said much to the effect it's going to come and get us Western infidels...but they haven't. Not exactly a good record. On the other hand, under the Bush adminstration, when the US has said they're going to do something related to foreign policy, they've done it. That you don't like what has been done is immaterial. The truth is the US has a much better record of carrying out its promises.

[Sandwich]

Better an honorable enemy than a lying friend.

[ionia23]

Question:  The guy who shot off his yap about Israel's nuclear weapons program.  What exactly did he disclose that was so bad?  Just that they had a weapons program, or where they all are?  More to the point, to whom?

[Sandwich]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

[Rictor]

ionia:

AFAIK, just the existence and general number (if I recall correctly around [l]20[/l] 100 at the time). And who he revealed it to is pretty much the whole world, via some British paper, the Sunday Times I think.

edit: oops, make that a hundred.

[Ghostavo]

Sandwich? That wikipedia article... er...

The arrest came three months after Vanunu said in an interview that Israel was behind the John F. Kennedy assassination. In the interview he had said the assassination was due to "pressure [Kennedy] exerted on then-head of government David Ben-Gurion to shed light on Dimona's nuclear reactor."

[Rictor]

oh come on?!

Look, if claiming that Group X was involved in the Kennedy Assasination is grounds for inprisonment, you better start building a ****-load of new prisons for all those people running around with "I shot JFK tshirts". Its ridiculous.

I hereby claim that the Japanese government killed JFK. And the Italians too. And the Illuminati. So, I guess I'll be seeing you guys in a few decades, maybe less with good behaviour.

Israel is justing digging itself a deeper hole. When someone says "So-and-so shot JKF" and, instead of laughing at them, you imprison them, thats looks a bit suspicous, no? The only reason there would be retribution over that remark is if someone withi Israel took it seriously. By going afte Vanunu, Israel has actually given credibility to the theory. I mean...its JFK ffs, one of the most popular consipracy theories of all time.