Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

(Cliffs at bottom)

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about a couple things. I thought -- you know, I'm not going to give him credit for anything big time, but he did score some interesting points. He said the United States backed Iraq in the war, the bloody horrible war with Iran that killed a lot of Iranians. That‘s going to help him back home, sticking it to us for backing Saddam all those years.

BUCHANAN: Right. . . .

BUCHANAN: Chris, to your point, he said two things. The Western nations invented chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The Americans used them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they were used on our people in the war against Iraq, where you all supported Iraq against Iran. Now, all those are statements of fact, and they‘re very, very persuasive in the Arab and Islamic world in making his case.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, gentlemen, about human nature. It seems to me that the whole third world case against the first world is that we have humiliated that part of the world, manipulated their governments, used the CIA to put people like the Shah -- by the way, the Shah's not from royal blood or anything. They just created that throne for him. The CIA put him in there against the democratically elected prime minister. We have exploited that country for its cheap oil. We've taken advantage of that country. And now we say we want justice.

Is there not an Iranian case against the United States and the West, Mr. Weprin, or do you say they're dead wrong, the country's just wrong and we‘re right? . . .

--------------
http://www.mclaughlin.com/homeslice/mclaughlin.gif
GROUP![McLaughlin Voice]
Mr. Politics Board Reader, Is there not an Iranian case against the United States and the West or do you say they're dead wrong, the country's just wrong and we‘re right? . . .

Cliffnotes: Prior to this exchange, the religious doctrine on cable news shows was "US interests may plunder other lands without respect to the cost in terms of human life no questions asked".

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

It's not really clear to me why the Shah, who's been out of power for a quarter century, has anything to do with whether or not a repressive regime that supports terrorism should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Are you implying that we owe them one? "Geez, we really f'ed up with that whole Shah business. How about we let you get some nukes and we'll call it even?"

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

I don't think America is really ready to look at our relations with the Middle East in an honest way.

The more I look at it, the more I wonder if the Armageddon scenario presented in the Bible will turn out to be true. It looks like Israel is the religious pawn used to sway the masses for the benefit of leaders on both sides.

This truly brings into question everything that we think that we know.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

Where is the proof that they're building a nuclear weapon? They do have the right to use nuclear energy for friendly purposes under the NPT. Last word from the Chief of the IAEA was that they were complying and that they are not making a weapon. But for some reason they passed economic sanctions on Iran yesterday and I can't help but think that all of this sounds very familiar.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

Yeah, its all our fault.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the proof that they're building a nuclear weapon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would a mushroom cloud work?

Wow!
 

Wow! Chris Matthews said something honest?
Perhaps this is a sign of the apocalypse.....

Re: Wow!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow! Chris Matthews said something honest?
Perhaps this is a sign of the apocalypse.....

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, its all our fault.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the proof that they're building a nuclear weapon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would a mushroom cloud work?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea! If we can't use logic and evidence, just scare the [censored] out of em!

Hannity would be proud.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's not really clear to me why the Shah, who's been out of power for a quarter century, has anything to do with whether or not a repressive regime that supports terrorism should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Are you implying that we owe them one? "Geez, we really f'ed up with that whole Shah business. How about we let you get some nukes and we'll call it even?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people can't get past the sunk cost fallacy when talking about interactions between states. If some indians blew up an airliner there would be a whole mess of pea-brained internet nutjobs that would justify it with wounded knee, and completely refuse to discuss what a crazy bunch of murderers those indians would be.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, its all our fault.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the proof that they're building a nuclear weapon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would a mushroom cloud work?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea! If we can't use logic and evidence, just scare the [censored] out of em!

Hannity would be proud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hannity is an idiot IMO.

Reality is often tough to face though, I understand.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, its all our fault.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the proof that they're building a nuclear weapon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would a mushroom cloud work?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea! If we can't use logic and evidence, just scare the [censored] out of em!

Hannity would be proud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hannity is an idiot IMO.

Reality is often tough to face though, I understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy asked, "Where is the evidence that they are building a nuclear weapon?", and instead of offering said evidence (which you might have, I don't know), you inferred that we'll find out after we see the mushroom cloud.

You skipped a very important step in answering his question.

Now, I'm of the opinion that Iran COULD be developing nuclear capabilities, but since I have NOT seen a mushroom cloud (or any other direct evidence), I am forced to believe that they are not building nuclear weapons.

I will readily change my views if I see evidence that proves otherwise.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

What evidence/proof are you looking for? The IAEA saying "country x has 145 nukes or the capability to produce xx nukes?" I"m not trying to be overly one sided in this, but our future security is pretty important to all of us I would hope. No evidence short of a mushroom cloud will likely satisfy some I'd guess. This is not CSI or grand jury testimony.

Do you think its ok if Iran develops a nuclear weapon? What do you think they would do with a nuke if they had one?

Finally, I wrote "Yeah, its ALL our fault." SOME of it is our fault and responsibility surely. I refer to the Shah. Our actions in the world one way or the other should be accountable. But put this into context. Do we as a society hate the Japanese in 2007 for bombing Pearl Harbor in 1941? You could certainly place blame on US policy in some part for that as well. Both societies have moved on. My point is that we live in the here and now. The world is a much more dangerous place than a lot of Westerners, particularly in the US are willing to admit. So for context, I'd encourage some posters to stop looking for ways to make us the villain and look at ways to ensure we continue to have the opportunity to keep posting on forums like this and enjoying our lives.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
but our future security is pretty important to all of us I would hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY? Do the people of Irans future security matter? Or the people of Iraqs? Or is that unimportant to this argument becuase we are the world police?

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but our future security is pretty important to all of us I would hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY? Do the people of Irans future security matter? Or the people of Iraqs? Or is that unimportant to this argument becuase we are the world police?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a US citizen. The security of US citizens takes priority over anyone else in the world. What do you think? Is an Iranians security more important than your countries citizens security?

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

Yes, I would like some evidence from someone other than the Bush Administration that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Have you been in a coma the past 5 years? You're using the same justifications for going into Iraq that weren't true. They're supporting terrorists and they have weapons of mass destruction. Have you learned nothing from Iraq? Watch this video as a refresher course for the build up to the Iraq war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
Have you been in a coma the past 5 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I've been busy fighting a war.

I'm not suggesting we go to war, although that is an option.

I will ask you this though, what if you are wrong? What are the ramifications of that?

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think its ok if Iran develops a nuclear weapon? What do you think they would do with a nuke if they had one?


[/ QUOTE ]

The most probably outcome is that they will use the weapon for deterrence value only. Only one country has every used nuclear weapons, the USA. Now, I am not saying the US is evil for doing so at all, but let's examine the lay of the land when the weapons were deployed.

1. The country the weapons were used on did not have nuclear weapons of its own for retaliation.

2. The country the weapons were used on did not have allies which possessed a nuclear arsenal that could be used for retaliation.

None of these conditions exist for Iran at this time. Moreover, history further demonstrates that countries armed with nuclear arsenals tend to avoid direct military conflict with each other.

There is a third factor, that does give one room for pause though, and that is that the United States and Japan were already at war when the United States developped the weapon. There is certainly room to argue that Israel, Iran and the United States are engaged in some level of conflict at the moment.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you been in a coma the past 5 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I've been busy fighting a war.

I'm not suggesting we go to war, although that is an option.

I will ask you this though, what if you are wrong? What are the ramifications of that?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm wrong and they have a nuclear weapon then the IAEA will probably say so when they inspect in the next couple months. If they hide it, would they use it on us? Maybe, but it would be pretty stupid don't you think? If they did use it on us, the U.S. and Israel would throw everything we have at them and they'd be left in ruins. Do you think they're that stupid to not realize that?

Also, how do we know I'm wrong until we have evidence to the contrary? If you're not suggesting we invade them then what are you suggesting? To gather more evidence like I am? And what are the ramifications if you are wrong and we do invade another country that doesn't have WMDs?

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you been in a coma the past 5 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I've been busy fighting a war.

I'm not suggesting we go to war, although that is an option.

I will ask you this though, what if you are wrong? What are the ramifications of that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran joins the list of countries we will not invade, and whose government we will not try to overthrow, because they have nuclear weapons.

Many countries have nukes. Nobody uses them. Everybody knows that using one in an attack would amount to national suicide. The Iranians are working very hard to protect their sovereign nation. They don't seem interested in being bombed back to the stone age.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

Then I think we agree. However, I don't believe Vietnam = Iraq or a potiential conflict with Iran = Iraq. Each situation is different and needs to remain in that context.

The ramifications of invading another country without finding WMD if the reason for invasion was WMD would be our already weakened credibility in the world would be reduced even further and would weaken the US's overall security and result in the loss of life on both sides.

Personally, I don't think an invasion of Iran is even remotely possible, but that doesn't mean there won't be military action.

Morph, mutually assured destruction assumes that both parties are rational actors.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]


Reality is often tough to face though, I understand.



[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to say you understand Reality?

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I would like some evidence from someone other than the Bush Administration that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Have you been in a coma the past 5 years? You're using the same justifications for going into Iraq that weren't true. They're supporting terrorists and they have weapons of mass destruction. Have you learned nothing from Iraq? Watch this video as a refresher course for the build up to the Iraq war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ

[/ QUOTE ]

I like youtube too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE

The major intelligence sources throughout the world felt Sadaam was a threat, as did Republicans as did the Democrats as did the majority of Americans. What were UN inspectors even doing there if there was no credible threat of WMD? To now say that Bush is a corrupt liar because things have not turned out well is counter productive.

Islamic facists are now intent on taking over Iraq, to let them do so creates a security risk for the United States. The world is an ever changing place and the United States must continue to take action to secure our people and our interests. The liberals are too concerned with being "fair" to our enemies and our enemies are using this to their advantage. These people will not be "fair" with us if given a chance.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]

The major intelligence sources throughout the world felt Sadaam was a threat, as did Republicans as did the Democrats as did the majority of Americans. What were UN inspectors even doing there if there was no credible threat of WMD? To now say that Bush is a corrupt liar because things have not turned out well is counter productive.

Islamic facists are now intent on taking over Iraq, to let them do so creates a security risk for the United States. The world is an ever changing place and the United States must continue to take action to secure our people and our interests. The liberals are too concerned with being "fair" to our enemies and our enemies are using this to their advantage. These people will not be "fair" with us if given a chance.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think quoting the majority of american's is particularly great at forwarding you argument. And I don't mean this by the fact that they twice voted into office Bush, though i could make that point, but rather just general knowledge test. How could they possibly have any idea of the treat of Iraq and Saddam if the majority couldn't even find the country on a map...?

And I really don't have any idea what you mean by your hole 'fair' argument...we're not being fair to them??? What does that mean? What would being 'less fair' entail? Carpet bombing the entire country? Shoot first ask second? I really have no idea how you could be any less fair to a peoples. Would love to hear your response/explanation to that.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

Par 1
My previous post did not do justice to disecting your argument. Alright. So you say that Republicans and Democrats felt that Sadaam was a threat...I seem to recall that the majority of them never even read the briefing on the Iraq war strategy...Oh but, they had the gist of the matter so it wasn't necessary. What were the UN inspectors even doing there??? I don't know how to answer that.any explanation is to long and obv not worth reading. but let's just say its usually a good idea to have inspectors visit countries which previously possessed powerful weapons. You end your argument by stating that questioning Bush is wrong because its going to be counter productive??? what the...So my Fire Stone Tire falls apart on the highway, i shouldn't ask why....my time is better spent getting another Fire Stone Tire???

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

Par 2
Islamic facists are now intent on taking over Iraq...I just had to type it out to really think about that...Wow..those are some words.Western Libertarians are intent on taking over Iraq...that sounds better. 'the world is an ever changing place' hey i agree with that. 'And the United States must continue to take action to secure our people and our interests' Now that...i'm not sure i agree with that...I think a lot of countries/peoples could claim the same thing.seems like Sadaam was just protecting his people from the kurds and Hitler was protecting Germany from the world..nope way to broad and scary that statement...And i talk about the rest of your being fair statement in my first post...but that too is pretty [censored] I mean honestly. Were being to "fair" yep.. need some more agent Orange i guess. teach those guys a lesson...hell, nothing like a nuke to show someone whos boss...they think they knew about chemical warfare??? Hell we invented chemical warfare...

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Reality is often tough to face though, I understand.



[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to say you understand Reality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reality as it applies to war, yes.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Reality is often tough to face though, I understand.



[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to say you understand Reality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reality as it applies to war, yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may seem like a small point to fight over.

but I must say sir "your full of [censored]"

or atleast very delusional, if you actually believe you can possibly understand the "Reality of War"...you have any idea of how broad and impossible that is? Have you ever fought in a war? Have you ever grown up in a war? Have you ever lived in a war torn country? Ever been a farmer to afraid to harvest his fields because its been mined? Have you had live ammunition fired through the walls of your house? I could go on for a long long long long time.

Its actually impossible to understand the reality of war because you would have to have lived some many different lives, and died many times.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hell we invented chemical warfare...


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll bite. Who is we?

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, its all our fault.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the proof that they're building a nuclear weapon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would a mushroom cloud work?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea! If we can't use logic and evidence, just scare the [censored] out of em!

Hannity would be proud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hannity is an idiot IMO.

Reality is often tough to face though, I understand.



[/ QUOTE ]


I would like to bring up the fact that in modern history Iran has never attacked any country or started a war. They have been attacked, but never fired the first shot. That seems like a fairy good track record considering the neighborhood, and the same can definitely not be said for us, Russia, Isreal, France, China, Pakistan, or India, (all of which currently posses nuclear weapons.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

Okay I will subtract that point. However, selective reading through wikipedia, chemical warfare has been around for centuries...however...the first time it was used in a modern sense. ie. in a projectile weapon was by americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemica...re#Rediscovery
"Later, during the American Civil War, New York school teacher John Doughty proposed the offensive use of chlorine gas, delivered by filling a 10 inch (254 millimeter) artillery shell with 2 to 3 quarts (2 to 3 liters) of liquid chlorine, which could produce many cubic feet (a few cubic meters) of chlorine gas. Doughty’s plan was apparently never acted on, as it was probably presented to Brigadier General James Wolfe Ripley, Chief of Ordnance, who was described as being congenitally immune to new ideas.

A general concern over the use of poison gas manifested itself in 1899 at the Hague Conference with a proposal prohibiting shells filled with asphyxiating gas. The proposal was passed, despite a single dissenting vote from the United States. The American representative, Navy Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, justified voting against the measure on the grounds that "the inventiveness of Americans should not be restricted in the development of new weapons."

Obv. you will read through this and see that it has been used or proposed many times and i have selectively choosen this section to forward my claim. But i think when i was refering to as US or We i was meaning america in a gerneral sense was perhaps one of the first/perhaps second along side nazi germany. to begin actively researching and stock piling chemical warfare agents.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
Par 1
My previous post did not do justice to disecting your argument. Alright. So you say that Republicans and Democrats felt that Sadaam was a threat...I seem to recall that the majority of them never even read the briefing on the Iraq war strategy...Oh but, they had the gist of the matter so it wasn't necessary. What were the UN inspectors even doing there??? I don't know how to answer that.any explanation is to long and obv not worth reading. but let's just say its usually a good idea to have inspectors visit countries which previously possessed powerful weapons. You end your argument by stating that questioning Bush is wrong because its going to be counter productive??? what the...So my Fire Stone Tire falls apart on the highway, i shouldn't ask why....my time is better spent getting another Fire Stone Tire???

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence committee and supported the Iraq invasion. Simply put, right or wrong, the majority of our leaders supported the invasion of Iraq. Either you believe that or you don't. If you agree with that then you will get beyond everything is George Bush's fault and realize their is an enemy with ambitous aims.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think its ok if Iran develops a nuclear weapon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Every country that's big enough should be developing nuclear weapons today. It's the only rational policy today -- although it wasn't in the past.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think they would do with a nuke if they had one?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they'd stop worrying about being attacked.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but our future security is pretty important to all of us I would hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY? Do the people of Irans future security matter? Or the people of Iraqs? Or is that unimportant to this argument becuase we are the world police?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a US citizen. The security of US citizens takes priority over anyone else in the world. What do you think? Is an Iranians security more important than your countries citizens security?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of countries that don't have a nuclear weapon that the US does not "mess" with. These would be countries who are not hostile to the US, its interests or its allies.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
(Cliffs at bottom)

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about a couple things. I thought -- you know, I'm not going to give him credit for anything big time, but he did score some interesting points. He said the United States backed Iraq in the war, the bloody horrible war with Iran that killed a lot of Iranians. That‘s going to help him back home, sticking it to us for backing Saddam all those years.

BUCHANAN: Right. . . .

BUCHANAN: Chris, to your point, he said two things. The Western nations invented chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The Americans used them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they were used on our people in the war against Iraq, where you all supported Iraq against Iran. Now, all those are statements of fact, and they‘re very, very persuasive in the Arab and Islamic world in making his case.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, gentlemen, about human nature. It seems to me that the whole third world case against the first world is that we have humiliated that part of the world, manipulated their governments, used the CIA to put people like the Shah -- by the way, the Shah's not from royal blood or anything. They just created that throne for him. The CIA put him in there against the democratically elected prime minister. We have exploited that country for its cheap oil. We've taken advantage of that country. And now we say we want justice.

Is there not an Iranian case against the United States and the West, Mr. Weprin, or do you say they're dead wrong, the country's just wrong and we‘re right? . . .

--------------
http://www.mclaughlin.com/homeslice/mclaughlin.gif
GROUP![McLaughlin Voice]
Mr. Politics Board Reader, Is there not an Iranian case against the United States and the West or do you say they're dead wrong, the country's just wrong and we‘re right? . . .

Cliffnotes: Prior to this exchange, the religious doctrine on cable news shows was "US interests may plunder other lands without respect to the cost in terms of human life no questions asked".

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL. On Chris Matthews it was more like "Anti-US interests may kill as many Americans as they can, no questions asked."

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but our future security is pretty important to all of us I would hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY? Do the people of Irans future security matter? Or the people of Iraqs? Or is that unimportant to this argument becuase we are the world police?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a US citizen. The security of US citizens takes priority over anyone else in the world. What do you think? Is an Iranians security more important than your countries citizens security?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the fear is more that the regime might hand a nuke off to a proxy, ally, or even to an anonymous terrorist cell. I agree they probably wouldn't use one themselves offensively if they could be positively identified as being the perpetrator.

Given the Iranian regime's penchant for utilizing proxy warfare (Hezbollah, and IED attacks in Iraq), there is also the concern that Iran having a nuke would make the regime feel that they can pursue their goals via proxy more aggressively and with less fear of direct reprisal. Thus Hezbollah, Syria, and any proxies operating in Iraq would be strengthened and emboldened by the mere fact that Iran would have obtained nuclear weapons.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of countries that don't have a nuclear weapon that the US does not "mess" with. These would be countries who are not hostile to the US, its interests or its allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. And those that prefer to keep their sovereignty instead of taking demands from DC should develop nuclear weapons. This is an obvious consequence of the US engaging in wars of choice.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the Iranians have that same feeling about their security? It seems like the only way that a country can ensure that the U.S. doesn't mess with them is to acquire nuclear weapons. It seems like pursuing a nuclear weapon is a wise option if you think that we're about to attack you.

It seems highly doubtful that Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon. There is some concern that they might "lose" one or have insecure facilities though.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of countries that don't have a nuclear weapon that the US does not "mess" with. These would be countries who are not hostile to the US, its interests or its allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so it's either do what we want you to do or develop a nuclear weapon. That would kind of suck if you don't agree with our interests/policies.

And aren't we hostile to Iran's interests and its allies? Does that give them the right to "mess" with us?

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think the fear is more that the regime might hand a nuke off to a proxy, ally, or even to an anonymous terrorist cell. I agree they probably wouldn't use one themselves offensively if they could be positively identified as being the perpetrator.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is the fear, but I'm not sure if it is a rational one. If it was ever discovered that there was even a high likelihood that a weapon used in a nuclear attack originated in Iran, they would be screwed.

[ QUOTE ]

Given the Iranian regime's penchant for utilizing proxy warfare (Hezbollah, and IED attacks in Iraq), there is also the concern that Iran having a nuke would make the regime feel that they can pursue their goals via proxy more aggressively and with less fear of direct reprisal. Thus Hezbollah, Syria, and any proxies operating in Iraq would be strengthened and emboldened by the mere fact that Iran would have obtained nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have utilized this same proxy warfare. As do many other nations. Saudi Arabia in particular comes to mind.

My biggest point is that we look very similar to Iran in these matters when looked at from their point of view.

Re: Chris Matthews surprising honesty on US-Iran relations
 

I dont agree with your second "war by proxy" point. While we certainly have funded and supported allies, it has never been hidden to the point where we would try and disclaim responsibility.