Actually you couldnt be further from the truth. I want Iran to give up their weapons program and allow the IAEA to do their jobs completely. Seriously if were about just a peaceful energy program thered be no controversy. For years nation after nation tried to offer them help in rebuilding their peaceful initiative,even the US. All that was required was clearing up lingering NPT issues and stopping enriching until they were cleared up. Neither ever occurred so now Iran has painted itself into a corner. Its really easy for Iran to get out tho.....the question is will they? Youd figure someone in Iran wouldve learned a lesson or two about playing these games,in the realm of this topic, from their pal Saddam. Bombing Iran may have to happen,if so lets hope its a hit and run. The last thing I want is another war, I have friends in the military...I think they deserve a break. Your random little tangent about my purported hate of Muslims isnt really corroborated by my history here. Maybe youre confusing me w/ someone else.
So... Nuclear armed countries threatening them is really the best option to try and get them to change their minds, right? Who's going so hard to push military action against Iran? Oh, "Israel". Who aren't even a part of the NPT. They still have not even admitted they have nukes, which everybody knows they do. But nobody mentions this. Iran has not invaded a country for how long? "Israel" is constantly attacking people, and have shown they don't care for international law or human life during war. America is pretty much a strike first, ask questions later country. However they seemed to learn that isn't too smart after Iran. And Afghanistan. But now they might do it again, in Iran this time... In case you haven't realized it, and for very good reason, Iran doesn't trust the west too much. And historically to call Sadam Hussein their "pal". Infact quite the opposite. I could call him your pal. The only people being killed right now are Iranian scientists. Seems they are the only ones learning anything... And if there is so much confidence this is not a peaceful program, where is the proof and evidence to support this? I'm waiting. Iran will not just sit back and be attacked. They are more capable of fighting back than Iraq and Afghanistan were, combined, and look how that turned out for America. سلام
He was America's friend and ally and Iran's enemy there is no doubt about that. Iran would like nothing more than a nuclear free Middle East, they would be delighted if the Middle East were nuclear free. I'm wondering why America doesn't want the same thing. Maybe if America were to get rid of their nuclear weapons, I mean they don't have too much regard for international law they are hardly to be trusted with them. Or Israel, with their record for ignoring UN resolutions they have shown themselves totally untrustworthy. Of the three Iran has shown themselves to be undoubtedly the most trustworthy. They haven't started any wars or invaded anybody like the other two have.
The United States and Israel are not required to get rid or not develop nuclear weapons. Iran is. And in regards to wars, I think you forgot about the Iranian take over of the U.S. embassy in 1979 which is by definition an act of war against the U.S.
How do you propose Iran gets rid of nuclear weapons it doesn't possess? Snakestretcher has already dealt with the second point.
So what you are saying is that it is one rule for America and Israel and another rule for Iran. I don't think anyone in their right minds would say students occupying and embassy compared to Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. With attitudes like that it's hardly surprising half the world hates America the two faced hypocritical war mongers.
You're right, it wasnt fair to use terror groups that operate for Iran but not under it's banner, now however it seems that the west decided to use the same "clever" tactic on Iran so both are equel again, go ahead and develope nuclear weapons.
You might want to consider what US and British actions earlier eventually contributed to that 'act of war'. Unseating Mossadegh was an act of monumental ineptitude so America has only itself to blame for the embassy siege. Interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation is totally illegal, and the embassy siege pales into insignificance against such a blatant act. And all done bcause of America's greed for oil. I'm done repeating myself on this issue. What is it with Americans that they selectively ignore the truth, and don't understand cause and effect-or choose to play ignorant?
Always intrigued by folks who use Israel not being part of the NPT to defend Iran. Israel not being part of the NPT means theyre arent subject to its mandates. Iran being part of it ,means they do. Whats at stake is the consequences for Iran for not complying. Iran is the fascist state with an entire military arm dedicated to exporting terrorism. Youre right Iran will not sit back ,I imagine theyll just start lobbing missiles everywhere, like a pray and spray..killing many civilians,like Hamas or Hizbollah on steroids. As a military they dont have staying power but they do possess a lethal contingent of terrorist agents,which would much more worrisome. I doubt theyll be an invasion so the ground troops wont be a factor. Then youre left with technological and numerical comparisons. I like the chances there. Isnt it amazing that Iran wont just let the IAEA set up their "peaceful" program. Instead their leaders are leading Iran directly down the path to war.
No staying power you say? The Iranians had 8 years of staying power, fighting Saddam between 1980 and 1988. Or wasn't that long enough, in your opinion? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm
lol...are you serious? OK given your rationale then Iraq also had staying power going into Desert Storm? Howd that work out for them? I think its fair to say an early 80's Iranian/Iraq battlefield would look markedly different than any coalition action against a 2012 Iran.
Yes I am serious. Iran held off US-supported Saddam for 8 years. I was responding to the assertion that Iran has no 'staying power'. I showed that it has. Next question...
lol...youre precious. OK so they have 1980s staying power vs invading foot soldiers. Little good that will do vs an air attack against specific target. BTW More than 30 countries,including the US to a small degree, supported Iraq. Soviet Union was their main supplier,much like they are in Iran these days. The Iranians were able to merely 'fend off' an Iraqi army that was destroyed in a matter of days by the US in 1991. Next question: What drugs are you on and where can I get them?
Defeating Iran conventionally wouldn't be hard. Dealing with the resulting insurgency would. It would make Iraq and Afghanistan look cheap by comparison.
