Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
126 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Iran would be stupid not to develop an atomic weapon (Original Post) matmar Jan 2012 OP
Or a way to threaten its neighbors. Something it has a long history of doing. onenote Jan 2012 #1
When was the last time Iran attacked one of its neighbors? Hugabear Jan 2012 #3
Iran has used proxies to wage war for decades now. Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #9
So has the United States Hugabear Jan 2012 #16
I thought we were talking about Iran. Ikonoklast Jan 2012 #19
And Israel has been waging a real war against Palestinians for even longer Hugabear Jan 2012 #22
Plus didn't Israel Shankapotomus Jan 2012 #82
You can't talk about Iran like that surfdog Jan 2012 #33
On the contrary, a nuclear Iran isn't good for anyone metalbot Jan 2012 #90
Wrong. Hezbollah was created by Israel when they invaded Lebanon and didn't leave eridani Jan 2012 #62
Hezbollah "even have Sunday Mass on their cable TV station." Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #116
Just pointing out that Hezbolla has a real community base eridani Jan 2012 #121
Oh my, no I could not say the Qouts force has been involved nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #60
It also has a history of having its government overthrown by the USA n/t arcane1 Jan 2012 #8
Yes, but Mossadegh's administration was a legitimate gov't that was WRONGLY targeted........ AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #67
regardless, Iran does have a constitutional elected republic. Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #117
I dunno about the "constitutional" and "elected" part. Selatius Jan 2012 #119
Incorrect. matmar Jan 2012 #11
No, but the Iranians would sure as hell try the minute they got one. nt AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #68
Are you sure you aren't confusing Iran with Israel? Puregonzo1188 Jan 2012 #101
Your post falls squarely within the proud progressive tradition of arguing for nuclear proliferation RZM Jan 2012 #2
I don't approve of anyone having nukes, but I still agree with the OP. HopeHoops Jan 2012 #5
I do feel America and Israel to blame for Iran's alleged desire to pursue nuclear weapons Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #6
Iran's reasons for wanting the bomb are similar to those of other nations RZM Jan 2012 #10
Last time I checked it wasn't a theocratic regime that actually used nukes.. matmar Jan 2012 #13
So let me get this straight RZM Jan 2012 #14
Strawman, non sequitur matmar Jan 2012 #18
No RZM Jan 2012 #25
Half-wit is correct fascisthunter Jan 2012 #38
Is the tone of your post meant to imply that Iran isn't to be allowed to "want" as do other nations? LooseWilly Jan 2012 #74
We've been through this many times RZM Jan 2012 #89
This doesn't explain your apparent self-delineation from the "left" LooseWilly Jan 2012 #91
Unfortunately RZM Jan 2012 #93
Sure, Iran WAS peaceful.........under Mossadegh. And look what happened to him. AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #95
Unfortunately we seem to be living in bizarro world Motown_Johnny Jan 2012 #24
and Yours Once again is Right Wing Reactionary fascisthunter Jan 2012 #37
That makes little sense RZM Jan 2012 #41
oh, is that your true motive fascisthunter Jan 2012 #48
Tell me. What's your preferred weapon when hunting fascists? RZM Jan 2012 #50
nib nub dur fascisthunter Jan 2012 #51
most likely cheetos. dionysus Jan 2012 #56
My my sir, you have certainly struck a mighty blow against fascist hunters!... LooseWilly Jan 2012 #77
Wow, thanks for that fascinating statement. joshcryer Jan 2012 #44
Thanks RZM Jan 2012 #45
Oops, sorry, not being sarcastic. It really does express something I couldn't put my finger on. joshcryer Jan 2012 #46
Hehe RZM Jan 2012 #47
A conservative Theocracy can still be a Nationalist representation... LooseWilly Jan 2012 #78
That's sort of how I feel about it. Iraq was the stabilizing factor in that region. HopeHoops Jan 2012 #4
"military invasion from the warmongering American empire" pinto Jan 2012 #7
We would be stupid to not stop them. onehandle Jan 2012 #12
Maybe we could instigate a coup.....oh wait.. matmar Jan 2012 #15
They're just as stupid as any other backward country that is run by a theocracy slackmaster Jan 2012 #17
Ah....what?? matmar Jan 2012 #20
I mis-read your subject line originally as saying they would be stupid TO develop an atomic weapon slackmaster Jan 2012 #30
Post removed Post removed Jan 2012 #79
Pardon me for erring by assuming that the idea suggested in the OP's subject line was sane. slackmaster Jan 2012 #92
But..but...we would never actually use our nuclear weapons on innocent people...oh, wait. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #21
"Innocent people?" MicaelS Jan 2012 #28
So, all those evil women and children deserved to be incinerated? Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #31
"Deserved"? No, but THEIR government started the war MicaelS Jan 2012 #34
By that measure, if the Vietnamese had nuked San Francisco it would have been OK. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #36
Oooops! You can hand MicaelS's head back to him now. Bonobo Jan 2012 #57
Thank you. nt AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #70
Well called sir.. spot on LooseWilly Jan 2012 #80
True Bonobo Jan 2012 #84
If the Vietnamese had the capability to nuke San Francisco, that would've been their prerogative Hippo_Tron Jan 2012 #113
So I guess you think 9/11 was really swell too? Puregonzo1188 Jan 2012 #107
Amazing! Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #29
Iran would be stupid to develop a nuke. Muskypundit Jan 2012 #23
I certainly do hope that the Iranian people would be able to oust these horrible bastards..... AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #66
Yes, because proliferation of nuclear weapons is a big progressive value LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #26
LOL. Apparently Liechtenstein already has one . . . RZM Jan 2012 #27
Send the Marines PurityOfEssence Jan 2012 #43
Fuck yeah! Lets encourage everyone to have nukes! Ohio Joe Jan 2012 #32
Hmmmm... EX500rider Jan 2012 #35
Iran has Had to Have Known it was a Target... fascisthunter Jan 2012 #39
Nukes are undoubtedly a deterrent against rival states fujiyama Jan 2012 #40
"Sees itself surrounded"? Jeebus. How about "They really ARE surrounded!" eridani Jan 2012 #69
That's what the poster said. "Sees itself surrounded" TransitJohn Jan 2012 #73
Oh, OK. n/t eridani Jan 2012 #75
Look what happened to Hussein and Qaddafi PurityOfEssence Jan 2012 #42
The idea of the only country with a history of dropping nukes on civilians tells others Bonobo Jan 2012 #49
Nobody's disupting that the US killed alot of people with the atomic bombs in 1945 RZM Jan 2012 #54
Undoubtedly, Iran wants to be the next......or one of the next. AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #65
Ok, assuming Iran even intends to develop nuclear weapons, which isn't given, and can bomb Haifa... LooseWilly Jan 2012 #81
I can't help but think the oil companies are actually going to side with Iran, if possible. AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #98
Certainly good protection for presidents/dictators but don't do much for real people. North Korea pampango Jan 2012 #52
And I believe they would rejoice once Iran gets its first nukes. AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #99
It is not just an insurance policy, it is THE insurance policy. Fool Count Jan 2012 #53
It's really not an insurance policy at all stevenleser Jan 2012 #58
If that was the case, US would not care if Iran had nuclear weapons Fool Count Jan 2012 #76
You are mixing several things up. stevenleser Jan 2012 #94
That's you who are confused. Both of your points Fool Count Jan 2012 #96
Worked very well for North Korea. ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #55
No, it didn't. There were never any plans to invade North Korea. stevenleser Jan 2012 #59
Your timeline is off nadinbrzezinski Jan 2012 #61
"Worked well for North Korea"n politicians/family of dictators; not so well for NK people. pampango Jan 2012 #88
North Korea already had conventional weapons to serioulsy hurt Tokyo and Seoul Hippo_Tron Jan 2012 #114
I'm sorry, but please STFU and wake up to reality. AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #63
This is utter nonsense eridani Jan 2012 #71
It's not the nukes themselves, you are correct. However, it IS the intent which is the threat...... AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #100
Right. And I have stated a desire to date Robert Redford eridani Jan 2012 #103
I have no respect for the Israeli extreme right...... AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #105
Oh, get real! eridani Jan 2012 #106
And that's why I would rather see peaceful revolution in that nation instead of war. nt AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #109
We don't believe in nuclear proliferation Rosa Luxemburg Jan 2012 #64
OMFG! They're THREATENING all the military bases we have them surrounded with! eridani Jan 2012 #72
"retain" an even-tempered adult as president? LooseWilly Jan 2012 #83
You can't be president without swearing allegiance to the military-industrial complex eridani Jan 2012 #97
I actually agree with most of this....... AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #108
The fundie government has been in power since 1979 eridani Jan 2012 #110
They just haven't had the chance yet. Saddam beat them to it once. AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #111
Unsubstantiated opinion, period. eridani Jan 2012 #112
Well, the part about Iran not having invaded anyone since 1829 is true.... AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #120
Even fundies understand nuclear obliteration eridani Jan 2012 #122
Well..... AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #123
Regardless of starting from different premises-- eridani Jan 2012 #124
I don't care if they get the bomb Mudoria Jan 2012 #85
I don't think they need to be told that, it's pretty much understood Hippo_Tron Jan 2012 #115
I think all nations should have them, especially if they are rich with resources, as a detterent got root Jan 2012 #86
Sure they would madokie Jan 2012 #87
Don't forget that Israel has one as well. Puregonzo1188 Jan 2012 #102
I wonder what the response would be if the discussion were on Israel's right to have the bomb n/t Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #118
Israel's getting tense, wants one in self-defense. The Lord's our shepherd, says the Psalm, slackmaster Jan 2012 #125
Frankly, I wish Israeli didn't have nukes either. AverageJoe90 Jan 2012 #126
K'd & R'd! DeathToTheOil Jan 2012 #104

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
9. Iran has used proxies to wage war for decades now.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:50 PM
Jan 2012

Hezbollah is a wholly-owned Iranian funded subsidiary.

Except when they kill people it's 'Freedom Fighting', so it's ok.

Hugabear

(10,340 posts)
16. So has the United States
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:17 PM
Jan 2012

The US has waged proxy wars for decades - and launched direct military attacks on other nations, often without provocation.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
19. I thought we were talking about Iran.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:31 PM
Jan 2012

Iran has been fighting a proxy war against Israel for thirty years now.

Hugabear

(10,340 posts)
22. And Israel has been waging a real war against Palestinians for even longer
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:40 PM
Jan 2012

You still can't provide an example of Iran using its military to attack or invade another nation in recent history.

 

surfdog

(624 posts)
33. You can't talk about Iran like that
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:37 PM
Jan 2012

And not be a hypocrite

As far as I'm concerned , no American can criticize Iran on the nuclear ambitions

metalbot

(1,058 posts)
90. On the contrary, a nuclear Iran isn't good for anyone
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 12:18 PM
Jan 2012

Nuclear proliferation is bad for everyone. I don't see how you could objectively state that the world would be a better place with a nuclear armed Iran. The fact that I'm an American and the US has nuclear weapons is irrelevant. You're essentially saying "nobody who is a heroin addict has any right to suggest that other people don't take heroin".

eridani

(51,907 posts)
62. Wrong. Hezbollah was created by Israel when they invaded Lebanon and didn't leave
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:59 AM
Jan 2012

It's a home-grown movement, and the only significant force able to resist Israeli imperial thugs. I'm sure they'e willing to take funds from anyone, but their alliances are within Lebanon, and include a significant Christian faction. They even have Sunday Mass on their cable TV station.

Leopolds Ghost

(12,875 posts)
116. Hezbollah "even have Sunday Mass on their cable TV station."
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 07:05 AM
Jan 2012

You should think twice before assuming that supporters of apartheid in the Middle East care about the rights of Arab Christians; they do not.

The evangelicals are racist towards Arab Christians and want them driven out of the Middle East;

The Likudniks hate Arab Christians as much as they hate Arab Muslims.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
121. Just pointing out that Hezbolla has a real community base
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 08:02 AM
Jan 2012

They are a movement and a political party, and they make every alliance that they can. Too fundy? Blame Israel for that. If Israel had not invaded Lebanon, they would not exist.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
60. Oh my, no I could not say the Qouts force has been involved
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:53 AM
Jan 2012

but Hizbollah has... and no, that is not propaganda.

Iran (and a few others) have been waging proxy wars for a while... the ME is in the midst of a very nice cold war. Look on the bright side, it might go hot soon.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
67. Yes, but Mossadegh's administration was a legitimate gov't that was WRONGLY targeted........
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:21 AM
Jan 2012

....whereas the Islamist one, is anything BUT legitimate.

Leopolds Ghost

(12,875 posts)
117. regardless, Iran does have a constitutional elected republic.
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 07:08 AM
Jan 2012

Obviously the system is f'ed up but it is more democratic than most of our allies in the Middle East, which makes it "ripe for attack because it is an open society" according to one Mossad expert interviewed on NPR the other day.

Selatius

(20,441 posts)
119. I dunno about the "constitutional" and "elected" part.
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 07:21 AM
Jan 2012

Last time there was a major election in Iran, a lot of protesters were gunned down by soldiers and police for protesting a blatantly rigged election against reformist candidates. On paper, it may be a republic, but in practice, it's just an oligarchy that holds sham elections to appear democratic.

 

matmar

(593 posts)
11. Incorrect.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:52 PM
Jan 2012

Does the US arsenal of nuclear weapons give it free reign to threaten its neighbors?

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
2. Your post falls squarely within the proud progressive tradition of arguing for nuclear proliferation
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:34 PM
Jan 2012

In bizarro world, that is.

 

HopeHoops

(47,675 posts)
5. I don't approve of anyone having nukes, but I still agree with the OP.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:40 PM
Jan 2012

I don't like that small-town shops you could walk to are being forced out of business by predatory companies like WalMart. That just means I have to use a car when I could have simply walked. Cars are a fact of life now and so are nukes. I'm sure Iran feels threatened on various fronts and merely implying that they have the capability is probably an adequate deterrent. I'm more worried about N. Korea than Iran. At least Iran knows what they're dealing with.



 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
6. I do feel America and Israel to blame for Iran's alleged desire to pursue nuclear weapons
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:45 PM
Jan 2012

America, Israel and NATO have been engaged in war after war for decades now, however, no country with nuclear capability was attacked during this time span. A glaring example of this is North Korea which is believed to have several nuclear weapons. They are part of the "axis of evil", yet they were left alone.

The US has Iran completely surrounded with bases from Afghanistan to Turkey, Bahrain and the Gulf. Iran feels threatened for good reason. Iran does not have he US surrounded with bases. Also, Iran is a relatively peaceful nation compared to the US as they have not been engaged in war after war for decades. Remember, it was Iraq that attacked them in the 1980's.

Iran feels the need to defend itself because of America's belligerent tendencies.

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
10. Iran's reasons for wanting the bomb are similar to those of other nations
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:51 PM
Jan 2012

It expands options. As a deterrent it's useful, but it's also useful as a means of leverage against non-nuclear powers. The logic isn't hard to understand.

What's harder to understand for me is seeing this type of thing cheered on the left. Traditionally the left has been against nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons in general. One would think a lot of people would be particularly averse to a theocratic regime getting one. But there you have it, I guess. Things change.

 

matmar

(593 posts)
13. Last time I checked it wasn't a theocratic regime that actually used nukes..
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:57 PM
Jan 2012

...on other people.

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
14. So let me get this straight
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:01 PM
Jan 2012

Your argument is that they are entitled to the bomb because they have never used it?

LOL.

Am I entitled to my own attack helicopter because I've never used one on anybody?

 

matmar

(593 posts)
18. Strawman, non sequitur
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:26 PM
Jan 2012

The historical record is what gives reason for Iran wanting to obtain nuclear capability...not your halfwit logic.

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
25. No
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 06:22 PM
Jan 2012

You justified your position by saying they 'hadn't used nukes'

Well of course, since they don't have them. I don't see how your argument makes sense.

And 'halfwit logic' is a bullshit insult. Unfortunately it's apparently jury-approved.

LooseWilly

(4,477 posts)
74. Is the tone of your post meant to imply that Iran isn't to be allowed to "want" as do other nations?
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 04:55 AM
Jan 2012

If it's a similar want as that of other nations, isn't that justification for it just as with other nations, such as the US and Israel? If not, why not? (Other than the obvious reality of "we don't want them to be capable of defending themselves and "our" oil which happens to reside under their land?)

What I find particularly striking is how you distance yourself from the "left"...

"What's harder to understand for me is seeing this type of thing cheered on the left."

... Many on this board consider... this board to be "the left"... are you setting yourself up as a critic of and judge of "the left" and simultaneously "this board"... with these comments? Or are you trying to marginalize a segment of the commenters on this board by employing "the left" as not only a label but a de facto epithet?

And... when I see you posting comments which seem to be using "the left" as a de facto epithet, I can't help but wonder anew at your choice of screen name...

The Reichszeugmeisterei (RZM), formally located in Munich, was the first and eventually the primary Zeugmeisterei (quartermaster's office), as well as the national material control office of Nazi Germany. It replaced the SA-Wirtschaftsstelle, the purchasing agency of the Sturmabteilung.
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichszeugmeisterei}

Which makes me wonder about the genesis of your critique of "the left"... which presumeably originates from "the right"?
 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
89. We've been through this many times
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 12:05 PM
Jan 2012

You're obsessed with me and the Nazis. I get it. The giveaway is the quote box. No need to keep explaining yourself.

Were I a christian, this is where I would say I'm praying for you.

LooseWilly

(4,477 posts)
91. This doesn't explain your apparent self-delineation from the "left"
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 12:44 PM
Jan 2012

... nor does it explain the apparent disdain in the tone of your post toward the "left".

Would you care to elaborate on the mistaken notions of the "left" when considering the imperialist behavior of the US towards Iran?

It is rather funny that the US can have a conservative, fundamentalist government (Republicans) and be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons with no outcry from the "not-left", but if the same consideration (no outcry) is extended to another conservative, fundamentalist government (who happens to have "our oil" under its land) then it's some sort of "left" delusion underpinning wacky thoughts... rather than simply being an expression of not-imperialism.

The box-quote, on the other hand, does go a long way to explaining your tone— coincidentally, I'm sure.

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
93. Unfortunately
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:15 PM
Jan 2012

You have no credibility with me whatsoever. You have burned your bridges with your constant personal attacks and bullshit accusations. Although I've pretty thoroughly debunked them on other threads, you keep posting them over and over anyway because it's apparently very important that your message get out.

I'm not explaining shit to you and I'm definitely not going to act as if you're some sort of judge in an ideological test. If you want to know more about what I think on the subject of Iran and the left, wait until another thread on it comes up and I'm conversing with somebody whose concern is the issue and not me personally . . . which would be pretty much everybody else on this board. Seeing as Iran is a hot topic and you apparently like following me around here, I'm sure that won't be a problem

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
95. Sure, Iran WAS peaceful.........under Mossadegh. And look what happened to him.
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 05:52 PM
Jan 2012

The mullahs, on the other hand, have been itching for a war to destroy Israel pretty much since they first gained power.
(Also, about the Iran-Iraq War: Saddam, as much of a belligerent tyrant as he was, did, to his credit, offer a cease-fire to the Iranians in June 1982. The mullahs rejected this offer, however, and many believe this was the primary reason for the war's 6-year continuence.)

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
24. Unfortunately we seem to be living in bizarro world
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 06:18 PM
Jan 2012


The US now has a record of "preemptive strikes" against countries it feels might be a threat (to profits).

Having nuclear weapons prevents the US from invading simply because you can nuke your own soil during an invasion without any serious repercussions from the international community.

All the talking heads still present nuclear weapons as strictly an offensive tool. With the overwhelming power of the US conventional force these have now become defensive weapons.

Bizarro.
 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
41. That makes little sense
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 12:52 AM
Jan 2012

Arguing that being pro nuclear proliferation isn't progressive is 'right wing and reactionary?'

If you say so.

 

fascisthunter

(29,381 posts)
48. oh, is that your true motive
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 11:57 PM
Jan 2012

or just the one you like playing on DU for argument's sake? Why do you even bother? Do you think people are that dumb... really?

LooseWilly

(4,477 posts)
77. My my sir, you have certainly struck a mighty blow against fascist hunters!...
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 05:05 AM
Jan 2012

Do you feel Cherry Garcia Proud??

Sangria Proud at the very least?

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)
46. Oops, sorry, not being sarcastic. It really does express something I couldn't put my finger on.
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 02:29 AM
Jan 2012

It's very succinct, very straight to the point.

Progressives against non-poliferation.

PAN-liberals!

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
47. Hehe
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 03:04 AM
Jan 2012

PAN. That's pretty good. I think PANOPLY (Progressives Against Non-Proliferation, Yo) works too

What's even odder is that we're talking about a conservative theocracy here. At least during the Cold War one could tap into broader progressive themes like socialism and colonial liberation (if not usually democracy) when making the case for some countries the US exerted pressure on. But Iran can't claim anything remotely like that. It's a conservative Islamic state whose government gets little support from its own secular left.

Thankfully I think the people arguing what the OP is arguing are few in number. Most people still probably oppose both war and a nuclear armed Iran.

LooseWilly

(4,477 posts)
78. A conservative Theocracy can still be a Nationalist representation...
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 05:23 AM
Jan 2012

Iran is a conservative Islamic Theocracy because the US, in 1953, overthrew a progressive nationalistic government in that country, led by Prime Minister Mossadegh, and installed a dictator and a secret police force, SAVAK, to arrest, torture, and kill anyone who might share the progressive nationalistic ideals of the Mossadegh government.

Kill the progressives, leave the religious fundamentalists in place, and oppress the population in general... and what do you get?

Your rhetorical intuition in trying to alienate a detestable government from the left here in the US which might be inclined to side with a nation being targeted by US imperialist intentions/power... does do a competent job of trying to villify a horrific government... but unfortunately the unsavory aims of US aims of re-asserting control of Iranian oil, which was lost in the Nationalist Revolution which the religious powers took control of in 1979, is altogether too obvious to make anyone who has the slightest grasp of international affairs and history not feel uncomfortable in the vicinity of.

Why is Iran governed by conservative religious fundamentalists? Because the US made it possible by poor imperialist management...

The Theocracy is just what's left of the Nationalism that the US tried to crush in '53.

 

HopeHoops

(47,675 posts)
4. That's sort of how I feel about it. Iraq was the stabilizing factor in that region.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:36 PM
Jan 2012

The shrub sure fucked up THAT one. We've lived with Russia/USSR having nukes for almost as long as we've had them ourselves. Somebody's going to make a mistake one day (think "Dr. Strangelove&quot and it could be any of the nuclear powers. I'm more worried about an accidental launch than someone "pushing the button" - even when Republicans are in control.

pinto

(106,886 posts)
7. "military invasion from the warmongering American empire"
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:46 PM
Jan 2012

That's a stretch of an assumption, imo. I doubt if either country sees that as a realistic possibility. In fact, I suspect both would agree and see that as a big mistake for both parties and the region as a whole.

There may be theoretical planning scenarios as a part of standard procedure. Theoretical being the key word. Most countries probably do that routinely.

(ed for clarity)

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
12. We would be stupid to not stop them.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 04:55 PM
Jan 2012

Bush allowed North Korea to get them.

I hope another country does not go nuclear under President Obama, or ever.

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
17. They're just as stupid as any other backward country that is run by a theocracy
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 05:18 PM
Jan 2012

I wouldn't put it past them (to develop one OR not develop one.)

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
30. I mis-read your subject line originally as saying they would be stupid TO develop an atomic weapon
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:30 PM
Jan 2012

Which is how I feel about it, actually.

But either way, they're stupid.

Response to slackmaster (Reply #30)

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
92. Pardon me for erring by assuming that the idea suggested in the OP's subject line was sane.
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 12:58 PM
Jan 2012

Last edited Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:04 PM - Edit history (1)

It's highly unusual to see a post on Democratic Underground advocating proliferation of nuclear weapons.

It's unfortunate that you are unable to engage in this discussion without stooping to personal attacks.

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
28. "Innocent people?"
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:01 PM
Jan 2012

Why don't you ask the Chinese or Koreans how innocent the Japanese were?

The Chinese suffered between 20-35 million casualties during the Japanese invasion of China (1937-1945). That is 200,000 to 300,000 killed or wounded EVERY MONTH the war continued.

The Japanese forced Korean women into sexual slavery as “comfort women” in field brothels where the women were forced to sexually service, as many as 70 Japanese soldiers a day. In other words these women were raped 70 times a day for yeasr on end.

Everywhere the Japanese conquered, they acted like barbarians toward Allied POWS and civilians. The Japanese beat, starved, tortured and executed men and women. They used living human beings as living test subjects in their infamous biological warfare Unit 731.

If the bomb has been available 6-12 months sooner, or the war lasted 6-12 months longer, then Berlin would have been the first target. Those who now condemn the use of the bombs on Japan would not have said a thing about their use on Germany. Their attitude would have been that the dirty Fascists got what they deserved.

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
34. "Deserved"? No, but THEIR government started the war
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:39 PM
Jan 2012

What happened was their consequences of what THEIR government did.

Japan needed natural resources, they could have chosen to trade for them. They chose to take them by force.

Tom Clancy had a character state in one of his novels "War is just armed robbery on an industrial scale."

The Japanese were not noble, nor were they victims of American, British or any foreign aggression. The Japanese were the warmongers during this period in history. They were armed robbers and they paid the cost for their folly. Considering how many people they murdered during their invasion and occupation of China, Korea and other areas in S.E. Asia, I think they got off a great deal easier than they could have.

A one point there discussion of using poison gas against the Japanese during Operation Downfall (the land invasion of Japan). We had stockpiled several thousand TONS of poison gas by the end of the war.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/pacific-online-forum/

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
36. By that measure, if the Vietnamese had nuked San Francisco it would have been OK.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 09:56 PM
Jan 2012

Because our government started the war. Or, because we slaughtered the Indians for profit. Or, because we stole Texas and California from Mexico.

"They do it, so we do it." Is a piss poor excuse for murdering people.

LooseWilly

(4,477 posts)
80. Well called sir.. spot on
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 05:44 AM
Jan 2012

I would add that it was,mostly, gently torn the fuck off... because there were plenty of adjectives that could have been attached to the off-fucking-tearing process.... which might've made it less pleasant for both participants and spectators alike...

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
84. True
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 06:28 AM
Jan 2012

The process of cranial off-ripping was done with a certain level of delicacy, dare I even say "finesse"?

Hippo_Tron

(25,453 posts)
113. If the Vietnamese had the capability to nuke San Francisco, that would've been their prerogative
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 04:07 AM
Jan 2012

War is a nasty business.

Puregonzo1188

(1,948 posts)
107. So I guess you think 9/11 was really swell too?
Sat Jan 21, 2012, 01:13 AM
Jan 2012

After all, ask the Palestinians or the Iraqis how innocent the Americans were. Or hell, why not ask the Chileans who had their own 9/11 or the Vietnamese, Salvadorian, or Nicaraguans our government slaughtered how innocent we were?

Luckily, most of the world, myself included, disagrees with you and does not believe that attacks on civilians are justified, not matter what crimes their government commits. That's why we view 9/11 as a despicable act of terror, as well as the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Though I guess it's ok to kill civilians when the targets aren't us?

Wind Dancer

(3,618 posts)
29. Amazing!
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:02 PM
Jan 2012

Have people forgotten that WE are the only country in the world that actually USED nuclear weapons? My goodness. I feel like it's the Twilight Zone.

Muskypundit

(717 posts)
23. Iran would be stupid to develop a nuke.
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 06:05 PM
Jan 2012

Because Israel WILL nuke them into the stone age the second they find out for sure. Most likely before. It's the dumbest thing Iran can do.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
66. I certainly do hope that the Iranian people would be able to oust these horrible bastards.....
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:19 AM
Jan 2012

.....before they could try such a move, and undoubtedly, you'd be right about Israel, I'm afraid, as they'd probably flip the minute they even thought that an Iranian bomb or two was headed their way.

LeftishBrit

(41,204 posts)
26. Yes, because proliferation of nuclear weapons is a big progressive value
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 06:30 PM
Jan 2012


First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?

(Tom Lehrer, 1964)

PurityOfEssence

(13,150 posts)
43. Send the Marines
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 01:01 AM
Jan 2012

When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first send the Marines!

We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,

What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till someone we like can be elected.

Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!

Tom Lehrer: a national treasure

EX500rider

(10,818 posts)
35. Hmmmm...
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 09:28 PM
Jan 2012

.....people seem to forget that if Iran gets nukes then Egypt and Saudi Arabia and then the Gulf States will all go nuclear also...not a good thing.

 

fascisthunter

(29,381 posts)
39. Iran has Had to Have Known it was a Target...
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 10:02 PM
Jan 2012

... since the Neocons announced their plans to force change in the Middleast. Fear of an imminent attack has always been a motivator to arm oneself. Just look at the knee jerk reaction of the US right wing since Obama was elected.(although there was no attack, just the paranoia of one)

fujiyama

(15,185 posts)
40. Nukes are undoubtedly a deterrent against rival states
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 10:25 PM
Jan 2012

and of course, Iran does see itself surrounded by US military bases and Israel, which has never been completely forthright about its own nuclear program (they are estimated to have several hundred warheads).

However all that said, the world has two very unstable nuclear powers as it is - Pakistan and North Korea. Do we really need more? As it is, we know those two countries have proliferated nuclear material, intelligence, and weapons. As we've seen, Iran has been hit with severe sanctions as it is - sanctions which are having an effect on their economy.

Say they were successful in developing nukes, we can only imagine the absolute isolation and economic desperation they will be in - likely leading them to sell and proliferate the one thing they would have.

A world full of unstable, theocratic regimes having nukes just doesn't seem like a good idea. The sanctions may yet backfire (in that the high gas prices will cripple already struggling economies in the US and Western Europe), but it's hard to argue that this isn't a fairly broad coalition that the US has put in place to implement these. I think it's pretty clear that most countries the world over just doesn't want to see Iran become a nuclear power.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
69. "Sees itself surrounded"? Jeebus. How about "They really ARE surrounded!"
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:24 AM
Jan 2012

What they see is reality.



TransitJohn

(6,932 posts)
73. That's what the poster said. "Sees itself surrounded"
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 04:38 AM
Jan 2012

As in: notices that it is surrounded.
Not: "sees itself as surrounded'; which is what you seem to be responding to.

PurityOfEssence

(13,150 posts)
42. Look what happened to Hussein and Qaddafi
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 12:57 AM
Jan 2012

They both got suckered to play ball, and they're both dead.

You have a point. I don't think other entities who are at odds with us will be so trusting.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
49. The idea of the only country with a history of dropping nukes on civilians tells others
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:00 AM
Jan 2012

what they CAN do and WHO is a threat.

America. They dropped two nuclear weapons on civilians --men, women and children.

The nerve of them to tell other countries that they can't be trusted is.... ultimate irony.

 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
54. Nobody's disupting that the US killed alot of people with the atomic bombs in 1945
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:28 AM
Jan 2012

But it's also true that the US killed way more people in Germany and Japan with conventional bombs during that war (that probably includes Britain in the German case as well). Plus, the yields of today's nuclear weapons dwarf those used in 1945. I'm not sure that argument holds much water in this discussion.

It really is a different game nowadays. What that says about whether or not Iran should have nuclear weapons I don't know. But the times have certainly changed.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
65. Undoubtedly, Iran wants to be the next......or one of the next.
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:16 AM
Jan 2012

I guess it may take mushroom clouds rising over Tel Aviv and Haifa for some to finally get the point. And then it'll be too damned late.

LooseWilly

(4,477 posts)
81. Ok, assuming Iran even intends to develop nuclear weapons, which isn't given, and can bomb Haifa...
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 06:01 AM
Jan 2012

or Tel Aviv... please explain to me the strategic or tactical reasons to do so.

Please refrain from using arguments such as "they're crazy" "they're extremists" or any othe such non-sensical flim-flammery in said explanation of why Iran would, given the realities of US and Israeli nuclear and conventional stockpiles, decide to... initiate a first strike against Haifa or Tel Aviv (or even Jerusalem)?

I can't see any strategic or tactical advantage to come from it.

On the other hand, should the US or Israel decide that they're gonna re-take Iranian oil fields (a very real and tangible goal of a number of oil corporations, which are probably paying some talented lobbyists to suck some metaphorical government cocks to get their way) ... Iran's possession of nukes that could be used in a number of defensive military scenarios... makes a hell of a lot more tactical and even strategic sense.

In other words, marginalized countries, like Iran, have learned the hard-way that nukes are the only real way to get the US to back the fuck off from imperialist designs on... killing leaders and their offspring.

So... once again.. try to explain why we should worry about mushroom clouds over Haifa? (without them resulting from an invasion of Tehran...)

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
98. I can't help but think the oil companies are actually going to side with Iran, if possible.
Fri Jan 20, 2012, 06:34 PM
Jan 2012

The MSM and the Pentagon been beating the war drums for years but nothing ever happened. Frankly, these days I'm convinced that the Iranians will be the ones to start a war, unless some of the Israeli military go crazy and decide to invade first(which could happen, unfortunately. Israel does have its share of nuts).

Marginalized? I call B.S. on that. I hate to sound harsh, but don't you remember Iran-Contra, or at least know about it? That is one of the main reasons I'm saying what I'm saying.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
52. Certainly good protection for presidents/dictators but don't do much for real people. North Korea
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:06 AM
Jan 2012

and Pakistan are two poor countries that successfully developed nuclear weapons. Neither has been invaded after the acquisition of these weapons so the political elite is undoubted quite happy about having atomic bombs. It is less apparent what the benefit to the real people of those countries has been.

 

Fool Count

(1,230 posts)
53. It is not just an insurance policy, it is THE insurance policy.
Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:16 AM
Jan 2012

Like in the ONLY thing that may prevent military invasion. Nothing else will stop American empire,
if its elites could make few billion dollars at the expense of few thousands lives of the underclass.
Nuclear capability is the only way to maintain sovereignty and independence, and it is simply
irresponsible on the part of any national leadership proclaiming such a goal not to seek nuclear
deterrent.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
58. It's really not an insurance policy at all
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:44 AM
Jan 2012

Since Iran would not have the ability to deliver those weapons to the US, there is no deterrent there at all. However, as India and Pakistan have found out, it is a big pain in the ass when you have a nuclear armed enemy very close to you. All of a sudden, not only do you have to behave, you have to get anyone associated with you, i.e. Hezbollah, to behave else they trigger a conflict that could easily escalate to a nuclear exchange. Any plane with an odd flight path or test missile that looks wobbly could trigger a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel as each country has virtually no time to try to figure out if the plane or missile has a nuclear payload. That is what you are thinking would be a good idea for Iran?

There are a lot of unintended consequences that come as a result of going nuclear, particularly in that region.

If you want further evidence, the US has still struck at drone targets within Pakistan. There is nothing that being nuclear has helped with as far as that is concerned. If the US wanted to invade North Korea, or a nuclear armed Iran should that come to pass, the first order of business would be to send special forces to take over the nuclear sites and command and control of those sites. You can do that when a country has a really small arsenal of nuclear weapons.

 

Fool Count

(1,230 posts)
76. If that was the case, US would not care if Iran had nuclear weapons
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 04:59 AM
Jan 2012

or not. But the opposite is true - they are obsessed with nuclear Iran. That tells one
all there is to know about deterring powers of nukes. Iran does not need to deliver
those nukes to US (though even that task is far from impossible), it only needs to
deliver them to Israel - a capability it already has. Sending a small commando unit
to secure nukes is a stuff of pure fiction and Hollywood movies. In reality, nuclear
weapons is an absolute deterrence which would give any country a 100% insurance
against foreign invasion. That's why no nuclear state has ever been invaded by a
foreign power.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
94. You are mixing several things up.
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:15 PM
Jan 2012

The main reasons the US doesnt want Iran to have a nuclear weapon are the threat that they would turn that weapon and/or technology over to a terrorist group or they would use it to attack Israel or use threats to close the flow of oil.

If Iran had 10 or fewer nuclear weapons, that would not protect them from invasion from a country like the US or China or Russia. All three of those countries have the ability to overwhelm Iran's defenses in a surprise attack and take over command and control of a small nuclear force before Iran could use them.

 

Fool Count

(1,230 posts)
96. That's you who are confused. Both of your points
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 05:54 PM
Jan 2012

(i) the supposed threat of terrorists getting hold of nuclear weapons (or even funnier - the technology
to produce them) and (ii) the alleged ability of some countries to take over the whole nuclear arsenal
of another country is a sheer Hollywood fantasy. You watched too many movies, mate.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
55. Worked very well for North Korea.
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 01:36 AM
Jan 2012

The Bush team was saber rattling against NK as one of the Axis of Evil, but then NK said "We have nukes," and the Bush team placed all of their focus on Iraq.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
59. No, it didn't. There were never any plans to invade North Korea.
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:46 AM
Jan 2012

At no time were there large transfers of troops to South Korea, at no time were any other plans ever made to do so.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
61. Your timeline is off
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 02:59 AM
Jan 2012

by the time the NK exploded that we were already heavily involved in Iraq. THe only reason we did not respond is that for some silly reason, short of a draft, we had zero troops in any form of strategic reserve to answer that threat.

We might have wanted to... (and I think they did), but they had no strategic ability to do this.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
88. "Worked well for North Korea"n politicians/family of dictators; not so well for NK people.
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 11:11 AM
Jan 2012

If anything were to happen to NK's nuclear-protected dictators who knows what bad things might happen to the prosperous and free people of North Korea.

Hippo_Tron

(25,453 posts)
114. North Korea already had conventional weapons to serioulsy hurt Tokyo and Seoul
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 04:09 AM
Jan 2012

Their second strike capability is way more important as a deterrent than their nuclear capability.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
63. I'm sorry, but please STFU and wake up to reality.
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:14 AM
Jan 2012

The Iranian gov't is NOT developing nukes to 'defend' their country, but rather as an offensive against any neighboring states whom they might see as a potential threat(particularly Israel). I hate to be harsh, but the U.S. and Israel aren't the only governments with major warhawk issues.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
71. This is utter nonsense
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:38 AM
Jan 2012

A handful of nukes in no way shape or form is an offensive threat, given that Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers with huge arsenals--Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan and India. What that handful of nukes would do is to deter a first strike attack on Iran, since they could cause some pain in retaliation. And that is the threat. The bully of the world takes offense if other countries attempt to defend themselves.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
100. It's not the nukes themselves, you are correct. However, it IS the intent which is the threat......
Fri Jan 20, 2012, 06:37 PM
Jan 2012

And the Iranian government has stated a desire to destroy the Jewish state and its people(which could end up killing many thousands of innocent Palestinians as well).

eridani

(51,907 posts)
103. Right. And I have stated a desire to date Robert Redford
Fri Jan 20, 2012, 09:33 PM
Jan 2012

Marginal nuclear capacity simply can't give Iran the power to destroy Israel, which is a major nuclear power and a minor imperial bully itself.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
105. I have no respect for the Israeli extreme right......
Sat Jan 21, 2012, 12:59 AM
Jan 2012

....but the Iranian mullah government is no better. If given the chance, they definitely would at least try to nuke a couple of Israeli cities to make their sick wet dreams of a second Holocaust to come true, just as some on the Israeli fringe right might want their country to launch a first strike so they can cheer the killing of innocent Iranians.

Frankly, I'd rather that neither country had nukes, if you want my opinion.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
106. Oh, get real!
Sat Jan 21, 2012, 01:05 AM
Jan 2012

A first strike attempt would get Iran obliterated, and they know it. But a modestly nuclear capable Iran would be much less likely to suffer a first strike from Israel.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
72. OMFG! They're THREATENING all the military bases we have them surrounded with!
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 03:40 AM
Jan 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_War,_1826-1828
The last time Iran invaded anyone was quite awhile ago, and they got creamed.

Take a look at the following map. OMG! They're threatening all the military bases we have them surrounded with! To be sure, we need to worry about Iranian bases surrounding us in North America too--oh, wait......


Not trying to blow off nuclear proliferation, which is never a good thing. But we should consider that Iran is completely hemmed in by the nuclear powers of Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel, and could therefore never consider a first strike without being obliterated in return. What nuclear capability would give them is a reason for other countries not to attack them. Too bad that the current reigning imperial power considers self defense on the part of other countries to be an intolerable affront. At least the batshit crazy elements do, which is why it is important for us to retain an actual even-tempered adult as president.

LooseWilly

(4,477 posts)
83. "retain" an even-tempered adult as president?
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 06:11 AM
Jan 2012

Obama has threatened Iran as vociferously as any others... just saying, on this point he's as ass-hat crazy in speeches as any other ass-hat politicians in this country (who all apparently have to serve the oil industrialists' wet-dreams as steadfastly as their wishes)

eridani

(51,907 posts)
97. You can't be president without swearing allegiance to the military-industrial complex
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 03:40 AM
Jan 2012

Obama is at least not motivated by a need for macho strutting.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
108. I actually agree with most of this.......
Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:42 AM
Jan 2012

...but to say that the fundamentalist government in engaging in self-defense, would be like saying that Iran-Contra and the overthrow of Mossadegh were justified(which, of course, they weren't).

eridani

(51,907 posts)
110. The fundie government has been in power since 1979
Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:47 AM
Jan 2012

Who have they attacked in the last 30+ years. No one, that's who. People who don't invade other countries by definition have militaries that are engaged only in self-defense.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
111. They just haven't had the chance yet. Saddam beat them to it once.
Sat Jan 21, 2012, 03:12 AM
Jan 2012

They would have preemptively invaded Iraq at some point in the '80s had Saddam not struck first instead.
These criminals are waiting for a chance to strike out. Let us hope they are overthrown, preferably peacefully, before they can achieve their goal......

eridani

(51,907 posts)
112. Unsubstantiated opinion, period.
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 02:59 AM
Jan 2012

The US is the primary criminal country in the area of military bullying of other countries, with Israel playing a minor role.

Iran is a country that hasn't invaded anyone since 1829, when they were badly beaten. They are the only truly independent country in the area, and this provokes the wrath of imperial bullies.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
120. Well, the part about Iran not having invaded anyone since 1829 is true....
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 07:35 AM
Jan 2012

...and so is the part about our government's activities. However, though, I do believe the fundies would love to break that mold, whereas someone like Mossadegh never would have contemplated it. We can thank(as in, blame) the CIA for all this, really.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
122. Even fundies understand nuclear obliteration
Sun Jan 22, 2012, 08:19 AM
Jan 2012

And yes, we can blame the CIA. Also, non-fundies have a better chance of voting out the fundies if we just back the hell OFF. Being threatened ALWAYS empowers the reactionary right. Note Shrubbie's popularity after 9/11-why would you think Iranians would be different?

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
123. Well.....
Mon Jan 23, 2012, 12:03 AM
Jan 2012

If you want my opinion on any involvement by the U.S., at this point, I'd rather we stay put.
And frankly, I think backing off might actually really increase the chance of the overthrow of these reactionary monsters, and frankly, this is my most favored approach; let the ordinary Iranian people know that America really doesn't hate them, and would like to see their lot in life approve. Although keeping the more extreme Israeli warhawks from going full-on psycho might be a challenge for Washington or Tel Aviv, it would be more than worth it. Not only would America's standing in the world improve, and perhaps Israel's too, but the Iranian people will wake up that much faster to reality, and hopefully be able to install a truly democratic government without the meddling from the extreme-right warhawks amongst our military, and others'.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
124. Regardless of starting from different premises--
Mon Jan 23, 2012, 08:09 PM
Jan 2012

--it seems that we have gotten to the same conclusion.

 

Mudoria

(2,838 posts)
85. I don't care if they get the bomb
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 09:20 AM
Jan 2012

as long as they're told if they ever use it Iran becomes a glass parking lot.

 

got root

(425 posts)
86. I think all nations should have them, especially if they are rich with resources, as a detterent
Mon Jan 16, 2012, 09:25 AM
Jan 2012

to foreign powers with hostile covetous designs.

Puregonzo1188

(1,948 posts)
102. Don't forget that Israel has one as well.
Fri Jan 20, 2012, 06:41 PM
Jan 2012

If we are trying interested in preventing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, let's start there?

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
125. Israel's getting tense, wants one in self-defense. The Lord's our shepherd, says the Psalm,
Mon Jan 23, 2012, 08:13 PM
Jan 2012

but just in case...

...we'd better get a bomb.

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
126. Frankly, I wish Israeli didn't have nukes either.
Thu Jan 26, 2012, 12:12 AM
Jan 2012

But at least they haven't been crazy enough to use them in the past few wars they've been involved in........yet.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Iran would be stupid not ...