Should Iranian Ayatollahs have atom bombs?

[JHBowden]

Given they chant about destroying the "Great Satan" daily, I would vote no. If the chance of them having such a bomb is even remote, I would support bombing the crap out of them, and I'd even support President Bush if he chose this course of action. Iran supports Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, and may even be harboring individuals like bin Laden.

Regardless of one's ideology, nuclear bombs going off in Tel Aviv or Los Angeles is *NOT* an option for me. :nuke: :nuke:

Discuss.

[Totally Committed]

1. No one should have atom bombs...

I am totally anti-nuke.

TC

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. You got that right

[pie]

2. Yes, they must have the atom bomb.

They are a sovereign nation.
The sooner they git' her done the better.

[JHBowden]

4. A sovereign nation with links to terrorism.

In Iran's case, we have an illegitimate, clerical government which preaches for the destruction of the United States and Israel all of the time.

You're suggesting that we respect sovereignty, even if it results in the destruction of Los Angeles, Moscow, and Tel Aviv and the deaths of millions of people. The concern is that they'd give a bomb to Islamic Jihad or al-queda which could be used against "infidels" in other countries. That's a price I for one am not willing to pay.

[HawkerHurricane]

7. So I can assume...

that when the war with Iran to stop them from getting/using nukes begins, you'll enlist?

Look at your arguement. Now look at the arguements used in 2002 to invade Iraq. It's identical.

[Karenina]

3. Should American *monkeys have them???

:eyes:

[murray hill farm]

5. yeah...

shoulda,woulda,coulda! they exist..the technology exists...and the countries that coulda been controlled by the power and fear of the usa..no longer can be controlled. the power now is in who holds the most oil and it will be for a long time. the only difference is that the oil countries are just realizing that power and exercising it. from now on until it is gone, oil will be the power..and the power will not now allow a fall from power country to control how it uses that technology. this is your world..accept it.

[Karenina]

9. :SIGH:

[MrPrax]

8. "Bombing the Crap"

out of them makes it much more likely of a bomb going off in Tel Aviv (interesting obsession?--why not London?) or Los Angeles, actually.

Also 'bombing the crap' as a plan suggests the US definitely shouldn't have nuclear bombs...

But you don't get it

--anyone that even thinks about using one is a terrorist supporting clerical extremist or might as well be one for all intense and purpose.

[gulliver]

10. Nukes don't kill people. People kill people.

Pakistan already has nukes, and their people hate us just as much as the Iranians do. Some version of MAD is going to be around a lot longer than any of us reading this thread. If Iran gets nukes, it will be no different than Pakistan, North Korea, or, for that matter, China having nukes.

The real nuclear danger is with people who have no "official territory." If we keep following the Bushian path, New York or Washington D.C. are doomed to nuclear catastrophe.

The best security is the most obvious: Don't make blood enemies. Once you have a dedicated adversary (or hundreds of millions of them as Bush has given us), you are in deep shit. Borders are an illusion and there is no defense budget large enough to protect you.

On edit: The problem with a major screw-up such as Bush has created is that there may not be a way out of it. Bombing Iran is just as bad as not bombing Iran.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. Sounds like a justification for never ending war....

Makes me wonder who made the US the ruler of the world.