Life in Iran

NCfan

lucylespian wrote:

Sure, but does teh US have a mandate to hold Irran accountable for their nuclear ambitions. I would be much happier with Iran having nukes and just feeling smug about it, than I am with another American invasion and destruction of another country. And is the same sabre-rattling and aggression that was used around Saddam likely to produce a better outcome here ?? Remembering that the US is still the only country with a record of having used nuclear weapons in war. It's pretty easy to forget that, but the images at teh start of Terminator 2 were real in 1945, not Hollywood make-believe.

I am suggesting that a peace inititive might be a better idea than a war initiative and that opening up trade opportunities is better than sanctions. Sanctions are like taking shit away from teenagers. They just breed resentment and anger, and once you have taken everything away , what do you do then?? Once you've got nothing, you got nothing to lose !!!!

We're on opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to our beliefs. Yes, I do think, as the reigning superpower and leader of the free world, the U.S. does have a mandate to hold Iran accountable for their nuclear ambitions - especially given that other countries such as Russia, China and many in Europe just look the other way in the face of this dangerous proliferation in a theocratic state that is at odds with Western ways of life.

I'm glad you would be happier with Iran having a nuke as opposed to another war, but to each his own. Nobody is sabre-rattling more than the Iranians. Nearly every significant country on Earth has has asked, pleaded and bargained with Iran to halt their programs - and Iran balks at these requests. They know that the U.S. is the only country that will possibly take action outside of Israel, and we are checked from doing so by popular opinion. In essence, Iran is laughing at the free world right now - and this surely isn't a good thing. It only emboldens their leadership and helps to empower their corrupt beliefs in the masses.

The fact that you would mention the U.S. using nuclear weapons to end WWII exposes that you really haven't given this situation any serious thought - only towing the ever-popular "America sucks and is a hypocrite" attitude. If you would remember, America was put in a bad position in WWII. We were attacked if you would recall, we did not start that war. The decision can be debated all you or anybody else wants to talk about it, but at the end of the day - the only reason we develped the bomb in the first place was because the existence of our country was at stake. Whatever you think about 1945, it doesn't have anything to do with our current situation with Iran - especially given we are in the position of halting proliferation. How could that ever be a bad thing?

lucylespian

NCfan wrote:

We're on opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to our beliefs. Yes, I do think, as the reigning superpower and leader of the free world, the U.S. does have a mandate to hold Iran accountable for their nuclear ambitions - especially given that other countries such as Russia, China and many in Europe just look the other way in the face of this dangerous proliferation in a theocratic state that is at odds with Western ways of life.

I'm glad you would be happier with Iran having a nuke as opposed to another war, but to each his own. Nobody is sabre-rattling more than the Iranians. Nearly every significant country on Earth has has asked, pleaded and bargained with Iran to halt their programs - and Iran balks at these requests. They know that the U.S. is the only country that will possibly take action outside of Israel, and we are checked from doing so by popular opinion. In essence, Iran is laughing at the free world right now - and this surely isn't a good thing. It only emboldens their leadership and helps to empower their corrupt beliefs in the masses.

The fact that you would mention the U.S. using nuclear weapons to end WWII exposes that you really haven't given this situation any serious thought - only towing the ever-popular "America sucks and is a hypocrite" attitude. If you would remember, America was put in a bad position in WWII. We were attacked if you would recall, we did not start that war. The decision can be debated all you or anybody else wants to talk about it, but at the end of the day - the only reason we develped the bomb in the first place was because the existence of our country was at stake. Whatever you think about 1945, it doesn't have anything to do with our current situation with Iran - especially given we are in the position of halting proliferation. How could that ever be a bad thing?

Actually, if you read a few more post in varius threads, you will find that I do not just toe the "America sucks line". In fact I don't have a bias for or against, just try to think objectively about each issue.
I am awrare of what brought about the use of nukes to end WW2, but it is still true that America is till the only country to have used them. It was not because teh existence of your country was at stake, it was just pragmatic.
Despite this, no other country HAS used them, depite lots and lots of antagonism and sabre-rattling. Iran is no more likely to use them than Russia, and depite what teh US may do, they will probably have them, as Israel does, then they will feel a balance shit will settel down. I would rather there were more cordial realtions in place when they get them, rather than antagonism.

NCfan

lucylespian wrote:

Actually, if you read a few more post in varius threads, you will find that I do not just toe the "America sucks line". In fact I don't have a bias for or against, just try to think objectively about each issue.
I am awrare of what brought about the use of nukes to end WW2, but it is still true that America is till the only country to have used them. It was not because teh existence of your country was at stake, it was just pragmatic.
Despite this, no other country HAS used them, depite lots and lots of antagonism and sabre-rattling. Iran is no more likely to use them than Russia, and depite what teh US may do, they will probably have them, as Israel does, then they will feel a balance shit will settel down. I would rather there were more cordial realtions in place when they get them, rather than antagonism.

What difference does it make if America has used the bomb or not is my question? How does that advance or support your argument? I didn't claim we used nukes becuase the existence of our country was at stake, I said we developed them becuase the existence of our country was at stake - which is undenaible.

How do you know Iran is not likely to use nuclear weapons, and why should I and anyone else be held subject to your judgement? The extremist Persian Shia fervor that is vomiting from the mouths of the current Iranian leadership nullifies classical deterrence as in the case of Russia. Would such madmen be willing to lose 40 million so that the martyred would be in paradise and the survivors eternally boasting that the despised Persian Shi'ites were the true jihadists of Islam who took out the Zionist entity? That's one hell of a judgement call to make. I would rather not have to make it, which is why I support any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Of course I support and favor diplomacy above all other measures, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the Iranian leadership is not interested in compromises, as several have been proposed. They understand they are in the position of strength becuase we have no bite behind our bark. The Americans are de facto checked from using military power against Iran because of the world's distaste for George Bush....

The world must act collectively; it cannot expect that 60 years after the Holocaust an Israeli prime minister will sit idly by while a Persian dictator first promises to wipe out the "one-bomb" state, and then proceeds to obtain the means to fulfill that sick boast.