Israeli Vice Premier: 'Iran can also be wiped off the map'

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I agree with you there fish, nothing good is going to come of this at all.

I do however feel it is necessary to stop them, but unfortunately it will be at a great cost I am afraid.

Military action won't curtail the anti-semitic sentiments in the region. Ultimately a diplomatic solution will have to be found.

A diplomatic solution would be good, but is there really the time to be able to get that done. Personally I don't think so, but I am just one person and I could be wrong.

Would it really be so bad if the Iranians had a nuke?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree with you there fish, nothing good is going to come of this at all.

I do however feel it is necessary to stop them, but unfortunately it will be at a great cost I am afraid.

Military action won't curtail the anti-semitic sentiments in the region. Ultimately a diplomatic solution will have to be found.

A diplomatic solution would be good, but is there really the time to be able to get that done. Personally I don't think so, but I am just one person and I could be wrong.

Would it really be so bad if the Iranians had a nuke?

Not really any more than Israel having one. I don't see why the 'pro-gun' argument doesn't apply here, just on a bigger scale If an armed society is a safe society, why should nuclear proliferation be any different?

I just don't see how we can legitimately force a country to stay in some sort of technological stone age. We wouldn't accept it, why should they?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Would it really be so bad if the Iranians had a nuke?

If an armed society is a safe society, why should nuclear proliferation be any different?

Bingo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Would it really be so bad if the Iranians had a nuke?

If an armed society is a safe society, why should nuclear proliferation be any different?

Bingo

The govt is only worried about it, because Iran having nukes reduces our ability to intimidate and bully them. Most importantly it reduces the west's influence in the region. I guess we don't want the people who own the oil to dictate how it is sold and exported.

Its fiction, but if you saw Syriana its explained quite clearly how the business works. Keep the oil producing countries in the hands of compliant dictators who spend it on pursuing petty interests such as gold plated cars/toilet seats etc. while never seriously investing in building up the countries infrastructure. Cheaper to buy from a petty dictator at low cost than a freemarket, growing economy which is after maximum profitability.

Edited May 8, 2006 by Fishdude

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Its fiction, but if you saw Syriana its explained quite clearly how the business works.

"The business" has worked that way for centuries. Today "the business" is about oil. Once upon a time, it was other things. The Brits ruled India for a few hundred years with many of the same techniques. Buy out the local rajas, have them do the dirty work, eliminate any opposition early. And before the crown it was someone else. Been like that for centuries.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its fiction, but if you saw Syriana its explained quite clearly how the business works.

"The business" has worked that way for centuries. Today "the business" is about oil. Once upon a time, it was other things. The Brits ruled India for a few hundred years with many of the same techniques. Buy out the local rajas, have them do the dirty work, eliminate any opposition early. And before the crown it was someone else. Been like that for centuries.

Imperialism at work. Except these days we are calling it 'liberation' and the 'war on terror'

[scooby 0]

Its fiction, but if you saw Syriana its explained quite clearly how the business works.

"The business" has worked that way for centuries. Today "the business" is about oil. Once upon a time, it was other things. The Brits ruled India for a few hundred years with many of the same techniques. Buy out the local rajas, have them do the dirty work, eliminate any opposition early. And before the crown it was someone else. Been like that for centuries.

Imperialism at work. Except these days we are calling it 'liberation' and the 'war on terror'

and...spreading democracy

[mawilson 2,133]

Would it really be so bad if the Iranians had a nuke?

Yes. As soon as they lay their hands on a nuclear weapon, everyone else will want one too --

Saudis, Egypt, the entire Middle East will go nuclear before you can say 'nuke'.

[almaty 19]

Would it really be so bad if the Iranians had a nuke?

Yes. As soon as they lay their hands on a nuclear weapon, everyone else will want one too --

Saudis, Egypt, the entire Middle East will go nuclear before you can say 'nuke'.

hmm..israel had one for awhile and so has pakistan and india...i think iran wants to be the big boy in the region and they want a nuke to become just that...

[mawilson 2,133]

hmm..israel had one for awhile and so has pakistan and india...i think iran wants to be the big boy in the region and they want a nuke to become just that...

Right.....Israel, Pakistan and India are not enough of a problem, so let's add Iran

with their chopf##k president to the equation.....

[kml_36 0]

Who says they want a NUKE?? Iranians??

NO, Iranian officials have never claimed that. Its those opposed to the IRANIAN regime & their media that spread such "rumors"!!

It's like the WMD's in IRAQ!!! & where are they now?

[mawilson 2,133]

At least the US doesn't have the resources for a unilateral invasion of Iran, judging by how closely they are cooperating with the UN, I also believe the american public don't have the desire for a further conflict that sees further US casualties. This administration has effectively castrated itself in that regard.

Fish, you are seriously underestimating the military resources of the United States.

Bush will NEVER allow Iran to go nuclear on his watch. No friggin way. Any veto of

UN sanctions by Russia and China will only give the US the green light to act unilaterally

(aka in alliance with the UK - and this time possibly France and Germany.)

Do you think the recent sacking of Jack Straw had nothing to do with his relentless

insistence that the possibility of military action against Iran was "nuts" and "inconceivable"?

[almaty 19]

hmm..israel had one for awhile and so has pakistan and india...i think iran wants to be the big boy in the region and they want a nuke to become just that...

Right.....Israel, Pakistan and India are not enough of a problem, so let's add Iran

with their chopf##k president to the equation.....

oh i did not say it was a good idea..i said they wanted one to gain respect and be the power in their region..

[Mirorgate 0]

Who says they want a NUKE?? Iranians??

NO, Iranian officials have never claimed that. Its those opposed to the IRANIAN regime & their media that spread such "rumors"!!

It's like the WMD's in IRAQ!!! & where are they now?

denying they want a nuke, while enriching uranium to weapons grade material? ummm.. sure. not interested.

personally... if it'll scare everyone straight.. sure. let'em have it. but first button pressed loses the world, I dont care which God/Allah/deity one prays to.

[Razor 0]

Do you think the recent sacking of Jack Straw had nothing to do with his relentless

insistence that the possibility of military action against Iran was "nuts" and "inconceivable"?

Blair: Nuking Iran Would Be Absurd Mon May 8, 8:37 AM ET

Prime Minister Tony Blair says that any consideration of a nuclear attack against Iran would be "absolutely absurd," and said the issue had no bearing on his decision to demote his foreign secretary.

Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, had described alleged U.S. contingency plans for a tactical nuclear strike against Iran as "completely nuts."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060508/ap_on_...HE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Edited May 8, 2006 by Razor