[TrashMan]

Well, the Israeli minister of defense sez that Israel will not allow Iran to get nukes. A decisive response is planned.
A "pre-emptive" strike?

Hell, who do the Israelis (and Us..and the whole EU for that matter) think they are to try to dictate to other what they can or cannot build in their own yard?
My problem with them is that they speak with that arrogant tone of moral highground and devine right - as they are hte only one wo can wield such power, and anyone they don't like is a "menace", a "danger to the free world" and MUST be stopped.

Yes, the Iran president is a nutjob, but he's a elected and legitimate nutjob and his country has every rgith to build whatever structures or weapons it wants.

[sandy]Spelling corrected in title.[/sandy]

[an0n]

Iran has said a bunch of times that it will bomb Israel into the ground the first chance it gets.

If I was a bible-nut, I'd be pointing out that all of this is eerily similar to the Armageddon prophecies right about now....

[FireCrack]

depends on your definition of "elected"

[aldo_14]

Well, the Israeli minister of defense sez that Israel will not allow Iran to get nukes. A decisive response is planned.
A "pre-emptive" strike?

Hell, who do the Israelis (and Us..and the whole EU for that matter) think they are to try to dictate to other what they can or cannot build in their own yard?
My problem with them is that they speak with that arrogant tone of moral highground and devine right - as they are hte only one wo can wield such power, and anyone they don't like is a "menace", a "danger to the free world" and MUST be stopped.

Yes, the Iran president is a nutjob, but he's a elected and legitimate nutjob and his country has every rgith to build whatever structures or weapons it wants.

To be fair, when he's made statements to the effect that 'Israel must be wiped off the map', you can understand them getting a little tetchy as the potential of him having WMD.  It's worth nothing, as FireCrack did, that the elections in Iran aren't exactly free and fair; the religious council pick and choose the candidates allowed to stand, for one thing (so any reformist can be quickly removed); even if the voting was open and democratic, you still don't get a free choice of candidates.

Israel will not, though, invade Iran.  Their elite 69th squadron is reportedly planning for possible attacks upon Iranian nuclear facilities, though.

[Sandwich]

Nuclear power is an unusual situation, since the very thought of its use is abhorred by most of the world, and considered a leap beyond the point of no return on what could very easily be a global scale. Any sane man must realize that there are governments (generally speaking, democracies) that can (again, generally speaking) be trusted to act responsibly and maturely with a nuclear arsenal - i.e. not to bomb their neighbors at the earliest opportunity.

Would you disagree with the assesment that one cannot trust the government of Iran to behave responsibly with a nuclear arsenal as much as one can trust, say, the government of Germany? Or France? Or even the US - the only country to have ever actually used nuclear weapons against an enemy?

[aldo_14]

Nuclear power is an unusual situation, since the very thought of its use is abhorred by most of the world, and considered a leap beyond the point of no return on what could very easily be a global scale. Any sane man must realize that there are governments (generally speaking, democracies) that can (again, generally speaking) be trusted to act responsibly and maturely with a nuclear arsenal - i.e. not to bomb their neighbors at the earliest opportunity.

Would you disagree with the assesment that one cannot trust the government of Iran to behave responsibly with a nuclear arsenal as much as one can trust, say, the government of Germany? Or France? Or even the US - the only country to have ever actually used nuclear weapons against an enemy?

Albeit, to many in the Muslim world that statement just seems racist; from their perspective, the only reason given is because Iran is an Islamic nation.  And to a degree they have a point; the countries that are asking for disarmament (assuming Iran does intend to build weapons, of course) are Christian, Western countries, ones that are generally hostile to Iran anyways, and which have been involved in far more aggressive wars (i.e. attacking rather than defending) than Iran over recent history (particularly the US).  The problem is that claimed moral superiority counts for little, because very few countries have the evidence to back it up.

[Nuke]

i think it would be cool if israel started nuking things, but thats just cause im a total fatalist about humanity and all. but if israel nukes one arab nation i thing the will suddenly be in a state of war with every arab country in the middle east. and i dont think a nuclear asonal will stop them from invading. i think if nukes are alaunched, the middle east will be a smoldering ruin for the next few millinea. maybe if were lucky some terrorist will suicide nuke bomb the vatican in some offish revenge plot. im personally waiting for the east and west to destroy itself and return the earth to its proper owners in the north, the vikings.

[Charismatic]

i think it would be cool if israel started nuking things, but thats just cause im a total fatalist about humanity and all. but if israel nukes one arab nation i thing the will suddenly be in a state of war with every arab country in the middle east. and i dont think a nuclear asonal will stop them from invading. i think if nukes are alaunched, the middle east will be a smoldering ruin for the next few millinea. maybe if were lucky some terrorist will suicide nuke bomb the vatican in some offish revenge plot. im personally waiting for the east and west to destroy itself and return the earth to its proper owners in the north, the vikings.

...
I think of one nuke is launched too many will be in responce, and thus 99% of the world is screwed. But AFAICT ww3 will not be a nuclear armogedon. Few if any nukes will be used. Cause if the whole world is nuked over, i dont see the biblical armegedon being able to take place.

[Nuclear1]

The Biblical Armageddon is not going to "take place"; Revelation is a very sensitive book, and, thanks mostly to Left Behind, people think that Armageddon will be a series of events at the end of the world. Chances are it won't be--most of the things happening in the book are happening now or have happened. But that's another discussion for another time.

It's no mystery that Israel has done this sort of thing in the past. They've proved to be capable of doing this with the attack on the Osiraq reactor in 1981, and I don't think they will hesitate to do it again.

[an0n]

The only nations capable of making a reasoned decision in regards to who should have nuclear weapons are France, Britain and Germany.

They're the only 3 nations with the technology, a history of warfare stretching back thousands of years, experience in the worst horrors of war and liberal enough ideals to consider the matter impartially. As well as the economic and military might needed to enforce their decisions.


And I think they should just adopt a 'nuclear holocaust' attitude. If Iran attacks anyone with nuclear weapons, they get turned into one huge crater - regardless of the loss of civillian life or the affect on neighbouring countries.

[TrashMan]

Nuclear power is an unusual situation, since the very thought of its use is abhorred by most of the world, and considered a leap beyond the point of no return on what could very easily be a global scale. Any sane man must realize that there are governments (generally speaking, democracies) that can (again, generally speaking) be trusted to act responsibly and maturely with a nuclear arsenal - i.e. not to bomb their neighbors at the earliest opportunity.

Would you disagree with the assesment that one cannot trust the government of Iran to behave responsibly with a nuclear arsenal as much as one can trust, say, the government of Germany? Or France? Or even the US - the only country to have ever actually used nuclear weapons against an enemy?

I don't trust no one with nukes.
But if the US  and Israel, and GB and France can have nukes, then so can Iran. Or do these countries think they have a god-given right to bully otehr countriies as tehy please?

And yes, Ahmejad said that Israel should be wiped off the planet (his opinion), but he didin't say he would do it. Just as many people say X or Y should be killed/hanged/shot to the moon...
He would never launch an attack. Israel has more nukes anyway..

[TrashMan]

maybe if were lucky some terrorist will suicide nuke bomb the vatican in some offish revenge plot.

You actually want somone to nuke Vatican?
Dude you're not a fatalist - you're sick. 

[Nuke]

maybe if were lucky some terrorist will suicide nuke bomb the vatican in some offish revenge plot.

You actually want somone to nuke Vatican?
Dude you're not a fatalist - you're sick.

duh

[MatthewPapa]

Iran has said a bunch of times that it will bomb Israel into the ground the first chance it gets.

If I was a bible-nut, I'd be pointing out that all of this is eerily similar to the Armageddon prophecies right about now....

I would actually have to agree with on that. It does sound eerily similiar now that I think about it. It could easily take place in the coming century, if not decade. Then again, people have been saying that for thousands of years and still have been wrong...so ya never know.

Entire MiddleEast invading israel = some massive engagement somewhere near armageddon

[Charismatic]

The Biblical Armageddon is not going to "take place"; Revelation is a very sensitive book, and, thanks mostly to Left Behind, people think that Armageddon will be a series of events at the end of the world. Chances are it won't be--most of the things happening in the book are happening now or have happened. But that's another discussion for another time.

It's no mystery that Israel has done this sort of thing in the past. They've proved to be capable of doing this with the attack on the Osiraq reactor in 1981, and I don't think they will hesitate to do it again.

I say it will happen. Everything the bible says will happen. But make sure to interpet the intent of the passages and context surronding them. And IMHO Left Behind should be continued in the movie industry and finished. Good movie's they were.

[aldo_14]

...
I think of one nuke is launched too many will be in responce, and thus 99% of the world is screwed. But AFAICT ww3 will not be a nuclear armogedon. Few if any nukes will be used. Cause if the whole world is nuked over, i dont see the biblical armegedon being able to take place.

I believe there is a historical opinion is that the biblical armageddon as described in Revelations is an allegory for Nero and his persecution of the Christians.  In any case, it'd be rather dodgy to assume it literally, because there's more than a few things in the bible purporting to be historical documents that are literally false.

I don't trust no one with nukes.
But if the US  and Israel, and GB and France can have nukes, then so can Iran. Or do these countries think they have a god-given right to bully otehr countriies as tehy please?

And yes, Ahmejad said that Israel should be wiped off the planet (his opinion), but he didin't say he would do it. Just as many people say X or Y should be killed/hanged/shot to the moon...
He would never launch an attack. Israel has more nukes anyway..

Albeit X and Y don't have a large army and happen to run a fairly totalitarian dictatorship.

Personally, I think Iran shouldn't have nukes; the leadership there is too unaccountable to the people who'd be hurt by war, and ruled by the leadership of (fundamentalist) religion and all the irrational hatred that stems forth.  That's not to say I think the US and UK (etc) aren't hypocrites; we have the perfect opportunity here to not only make a moral point but also save billions, all we have to do is cancel the refit of Trident and decomission it instead.  Given that neither the UK nor any 'sane' country has a first strike policy for nuclear weapons, they're largely useless; any point they'd be used would be after defeat.

[Goober5000]

Zechariah 12:1-3...

This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares: I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.

[Sandwich]

He would never launch an attack. Israel has more nukes anyway..

The Hamas would never send a suicide bomber. Israel has more tanks anyway..

As I'm sure you can see, such reasoning doesn't always work.

Zechariah 12:1-3...

This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares: I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.

Iran: Israel should be wiped off the map!!
God: Pwn3d.

[ionia23]

I know a lot of people have fun with the "Oh, the evil U.S. has nukes and used them in war, how dare they dictate who can develop their own."  

See, it's not just us who want to reign in the insanity (that we created, I know).  it's every established nuclear power.  Everyone knows what they are sitting on.

But, keep in mind.  We've been sitting on one of the biggest (next to Russia and China) stockpiles since the late 1940's and we haven't used them.  We know it only takes one to knock over everybody.  Say what you will about our agressive, arrogant, and unwarranted approaches to foreign policy, but we simply will not fire first.

The only military advantage provided by nuclear weapons is against those with nuclear weapons. Detente.   We, and the other nuclear powers have proven we can be responsible with what we have and not use them 'off the cuff'.

On the flipside I can certainly understand why some nations wouldn't trust us.

I know full well that the attitude of the Iranian president does not represent the attitude of every person in his country.  I certainly hope this can be worked out without resorting to battle.  There's been enough of that going around.

[yubyub]

*sneaks out of Lurking*

To be honest, I agree that Iran has no right to have nuclear technology.  I am of the opinion that France, Germany, Russia, the US, Britain, and other nations that already have nukes DO have to right to bully other nations out of gaining nukes.  If another nation is added to the nuke list, one who is politically set against those who already have them, then the current balance will be broken, and all hell will break loose.  I applaud any efforts, Israeli led  or otherwise, to keep this balance from being upset.  

To keep being honest, I'm not very worried about North Korea and its nukes.  North Korea has its own self-interest at heart.  Iran, however, only wants to hurt its enemies.  This is a dangerous thing.  

A nuclear-armed Iran simply can't be tolerated.  Why?  They could hurt me, and its all about me!  After all, government is designed for one thing, to keep itself in power.  If they fail to protect me, they get ousted.  If Iran gets nukes, I haven't been protected.

And now I will end this rant of random, unconnect thoughts.