regarding the bombing of Iran...

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
who's saying bush = ahmadinejad? All I'm saying is that if one of your concerns about Iran is that its leaders believe ME policy should be informed by fundamentalist apocalypse scenarios that you have to be concerned with the same thing in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, for the reasons I mentioned above. Bush has said he hopes Jesus is coming back, Ahmadinejad has said that once he destroys Isreal, or at least starts a nuclear war with them, then his 12 iman can come back.

Even if you don't agree, humor me please and say you see the difference there.

Cody

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
who's saying bush = ahmadinejad? All I'm saying is that if one of your concerns about Iran is that its leaders believe ME policy should be informed by fundamentalist apocalypse scenarios that you have to be concerned with the same thing in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, for the reasons I mentioned above. Bush has said he hopes Jesus is coming back, Ahmadinejad has said that once he destroys Isreal, or at least starts a nuclear war with them, then his 12 iman can come back.

Even if you don't agree, humor me please and say you see the difference there.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, what he said publicly was that jesus came to him in his dreams and told him - let's go to war. that's a big difference. paradoxically, i can't recall anyone questioning too much or proposing some mental examination.
one would advocate him he was just trying to be funny and just telling jokes. IMO no top official and especially not the leader should ever make any jokes publicly about seeing jesus, hearing voices and especially not about going into war.

so, from the other perspective, one was actually seeing/talking/hearing his '12 iman' and the other is just believing he might brought 'jesus' back.

so yes, i see the difference there.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO no top official and especially not the leader should ever make any jokes publicly about seeing jesus, hearing voices and especially not about going into war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little more tolerant about jokes, but I agree that no official should ever site God as justification for anything.

[ QUOTE ]
so, from the other perspective, one was actually seeing/talking/hearing his '12 iman' and the other is just believing he might brought 'jesus' back.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can choose to hear whatever you choose but Bush jokes (at least it seemed like a joke) "God told me to go to war" and Ahmadinejad says (no indication is might've been a joke) "I"m going to launch a nuclear war to bring about the endgame" there's an obvious difference in crazy level there.

I still hold out hope that Ahmadinejad is just saying crazy things in the same way our politicians have to say "Gays are evil" even when they don't believe it, just to appeal to fringe groups.

Cody

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO no top official and especially not the leader should ever make any jokes publicly about seeing jesus, hearing voices and especially not about going into war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little more tolerant about jokes, but I agree that no official should ever site God as justification for anything.

[ QUOTE ]
so, from the other perspective, one was actually seeing/talking/hearing his '12 iman' and the other is just believing he might brought 'jesus' back.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can choose to hear whatever you choose but Bush jokes (at least it seemed like a joke) "God told me to go to war" and Ahmadinejad says (no indication is might've been a joke) "I"m going to launch a nuclear war to bring about the endgame" there's an obvious difference in crazy level there.

I still hold out hope that Ahmadinejad is just saying crazy things in the same way our politicians have to say "Gays are evil" even when they don't believe it, just to appeal to fringe groups.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Being gay in Iran is punishable by death.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

This is the same government that executed a 13 year old girl for hanging her. Her only offense? She was raped by two soldiers, and she was no longer 'pure'.

Iran is also funding our enemies in Iraq, and aiding the murder of American soldiers. They've kidnapped British sailors...twice.

If you guys feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear capabilities, would you also feel comfortable with the Taliban having the same capability?

That's a yes or no question, and if you answer no then we can argue about the difference between the two regimes.
If you answer yes, then you are clinically retarded and there's really no point in even having an intelligent discourse with you.



[/ QUOTE ]

WG,

I'm not comfortable with anyone having Nukes, including the US. The Iranian goverment is brutal, but they don't pose a threat to the US, so we shouldn't attack them.

I'm still not very impressed with the arguments that Ahmeninajad is crazy. The comment he made about the dead soldiers seems like what I would say in place of saying "They set an example of patriotism for us all" or something like you would hear in america.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is the same government that executed a 13 year old girl for hanging her. Her only offense? She was raped by two soldiers, and she was no longer 'pure'.

Iran is also funding our enemies in Iraq, and aiding the murder of American soldiers. They've kidnapped British sailors...twice.

If you guys feel comfortable with Iran having nuclear capabilities, would you also feel comfortable with the Taliban having the same capability?

That's a yes or no question, and if you answer no then we can argue about the difference between the two regimes.
If you answer yes, then you are clinically retarded and there's really no point in even having an intelligent discourse with you.



[/ QUOTE ]

WG,

I'm not comfortable with anyone having Nukes, including the US. The Iranian goverment is brutal, but they don't pose a threat to the US, so we shouldn't attack them.

I'm still not very impressed with the arguments that Ahmeninajad is crazy. The comment he made about the dead soldiers seems like what I would say in place of saying "They set an example of patriotism for us all" or something like you would hear in america.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the only way to avoid a nuclear war is for complete nuclear disarmament, and this is very unlikely. People are being far too optimistic saying that it will never happen because MAD is such a great deterrent, but they don't realize that for every country that achieves nuclear armament that chance of such a war breaking out comes closer.

If every country on the globe were given nuclear weapons tomorrow, would you feel safe? How long do you think conventional peace would last?

That's the point I'm getting at. Iran having nuclear capability benefits no one.

[AJW]

A couple of point first Ahmadinejad's position as president isn’t a direct mirror of GWB's it seams that his out ranked by the supreme leader Ali Khamenei. The supreme leader can be replaced at any time by the Assembly of Experts so even if Ahmadinejad’s is mad enough to pre-emptively strike Israel it needs a lot of people with in the Iranian government to agree with him before he can act.
Iran has acted quite rationally up until this point it hasn’t attacked any of its neighbours and it has attempted to build diplomatic relations with most of the worlds nations. I don’t see why we should expect this rationality to abruptly end should they acquire nuclear weapons.
Iran's hostility towards the USA seems entirely justified when you look at things from their perspective. You have invaded their country and installed puppet dictators, you have allowed the CIA to operate out of the US embassy and you have funded Iran in an eight year war against them.
The massive power imbalance that exists in the middle east now with Israel possessing nuclear weapons one of the worlds ten largest armies and a seemingly guaranteed US veto of any UN resolution against it is one of the causes of instability some kind of balance might just stabilize things.
Israel is rational and I believe that Iran is also. I don’t think that Armageddon is an inevitable result of Iran gaining the bomb.
Id of course prefer that no nation gained nuclear weapons but after Americas recent rhetoric towards North Korea and Iraq its easy to see why Iran might feel that a nuclear capability is its only defence against a hostile nation currently engaged in military action against two of its neighbours.
Perhaps making a real attempt to build diplomatic ties and establish normal relations would go some way to wards softening their attitude towards you. I suggest starting by returning the twelve billion dollars of Iranian assets you froze in 1979 and agreed to unfreeze in return for the embassy hostages.
As to your original question it would be better internationally for Israel if the US was seen to be responsible, it would be better for the US if Israel was seen to be responsible but in the minds of the Arab people it would hardly matter as Israel and the US are seen as intrinsically linked.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the only way to avoid a nuclear war is for complete nuclear disarmament, and this is very unlikely. People are being far too optimistic saying that it will never happen because MAD is such a great deterrent, but they don't realize that for every country that achieves nuclear armament that chance of such a war breaking out comes closer.

If every country on the globe were given nuclear weapons tomorrow, would you feel safe? How long do you think conventional peace would last?

That's the point I'm getting at. Iran having nuclear capability benefits no one.

[/ QUOTE ]

it would benefit Iran enormously. i guess you agree nuclear weapon is the best defense weapon. they might be frightened by iraq adventure - i bet if iraq would have it, there wouldn't be iraq adventure at all.

i am not advocating iran should have it. i wish they wouldn't. and they wouldn't develop it, if they had no reason for that. with rethoric like we'll nuke you, i'm sure they would desperately try to develop it.

here are some solutions:
1. U-turn of US administration towards iran. accept them as equal and important factor in the region. don't demand, but ask and they will do the same. respect them and they will respect you. after all, which US-friendly country would try to develop nuclear weapon without the previous permission of US and risking good relationship?

2. nuclear free middle east - including all muslim countries and israel. iran would most probably support the idea (according to poll 71% of iranians would support it). that doesn't mean israel would be defenseless and you can always come with nukes against any aggressor. i actually believe israel would be much safer for a longer period.

3. or at least move all US soldiers out of the middle east and stop using hostile language and they might listen.

not accepting them as equal partner, even more threatening them all the time, cannot produce anything but resistance even if a giant is on the other site.

still, any of those scenarios are unlikely, but you shouldn't blame iran too much for that. be sure, they'd like to have a superb relations with US (just like any other country, right?). i doubt they would have such a desire for nukes if there wouldn't be iraq adventure.

leaders are often loud about important issues because of domestic reasons no matter if it is dictatorship, chavez, even your president or pope.

i'm not sure if those promoting war did think anything about situation in the whole region, expenses and casualties on your site. analysts say war in iraq will cost in between 1-2 trillion $. so, how much would cost this war and all most probable conflicts vs americans in the whole region and who would cover it? and how many US casualties would be still ok? would israel be safer after this war? would US be?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of point first Ahmadinejad's position as president isn’t a direct mirror of GWB's it seams that his out ranked by the supreme leader Ali Khamenei. The supreme leader can be replaced at any time by the Assembly of Experts so even if Ahmadinejad’s is mad enough to pre-emptively strike Israel it needs a lot of people with in the Iranian government to agree with him before he can act.
Iran has acted quite rationally up until this point it hasn’t attacked any of its neighbours and it has attempted to build diplomatic relations with most of the worlds nations. I don’t see why we should expect this rationality to abruptly end should they acquire nuclear weapons.
Iran's hostility towards the USA seems entirely justified when you look at things from their perspective. You have invaded their country and installed puppet dictators, you have allowed the CIA to operate out of the US embassy and you have funded Iran in an eight year war against them.
The massive power imbalance that exists in the middle east now with Israel possessing nuclear weapons one of the worlds ten largest armies and a seemingly guaranteed US veto of any UN resolution against it is one of the causes of instability some kind of balance might just stabilize things.
Israel is rational and I believe that Iran is also. I don’t think that Armageddon is an inevitable result of Iran gaining the bomb.
Id of course prefer that no nation gained nuclear weapons but after Americas recent rhetoric towards North Korea and Iraq its easy to see why Iran might feel that a nuclear capability is its only defence against a hostile nation currently engaged in military action against two of its neighbours.
Perhaps making a real attempt to build diplomatic ties and establish normal relations would go some way to wards softening their attitude towards you. I suggest starting by returning the twelve billion dollars of Iranian assets you froze in 1979 and agreed to unfreeze in return for the embassy hostages.
As to your original question it would be better internationally for Israel if the US was seen to be responsible, it would be better for the US if Israel was seen to be responsible but in the minds of the Arab people it would hardly matter as Israel and the US are seen as intrinsically linked.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that the animosity of Iran towards USA is justified - that may well be so, to an extent, and I won't argue that point. What I'd like to know is what is the possible and reasonable justification for Iran's flaming animosity towards Israel, a country that has never done anything bad in the slightest degree to Iran or to Persians. Israel has oppressed Palestinians, is that Iran's supposed justification? By that rationale, any country has the right to hate any other country and make noises about wiping it off the map if it perceives that that other country has done anything to any other country or to any group of people. It is not a sound rationale and it is certainly no excuse for a third party to be making threatening noises about wiping Israel off the map.

If Iran is upset about the USA meddling in their affairs decades ago, maybe Iran should stop meddling in the affairs of others (Lebanon, Iraq). I don't deny there has been some hypocrisy on the part of the USA based on past actions, but what about Iran's hypocrisy? If Iran objects on principle to being meddled with then what the heck are they doing severely meddling all over the region themselves? The truth is that the mullahs want to spread their version of theocratic rule, and to literally wipe out the Jews if they can get away with it. The Palestinian cause is wholly unrelated to Iran and merely serves as a convenient excuse for Iran to put pressure through proxy on Israel and to try to advance their cause of a hardline theocratic Islamic regime - a highly intolerant regime and ideology which would prefer to see the Jews and their supporters gone from the face of the Earth. Yet Israel never did anything to Iran (to my knowledge, anyway).

Any further insights welcome. Thanks for reading.

[MuresanForMVP]

I don't like nuclear weapons because they're the only thing that would allow any country to do significant damage to the US in an all-out military conflict. If noone had them we would own any country in the world, and it wouldn't even be close.