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

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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'.

So? Let them have their nukes. We've got ours. MAD works.

At least the US doesn't have the resources for a unilateral invasion of Iran...

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

The US may not have the resources for an invasion, but they do have more than enough resources to bomb that country back into the Stone Age. Now if only they'd be nice little persians and go back to the Stone Age on their own, then they could spare the world much unpleasantness.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.)

That's why this has all the makings of a new world war. If the US government does go to war unilaterally it will I suspect be without the majority of public backing, which is already significantly against the war in Iraq and a major reason for Bush's piss poor performance ratings in recent polls.

The US may not have the resources for an invasion, but they do have more than enough resources to bomb that country back into the Stone Age. Now if only they'd be nice little persians and go back to the Stone Age on their own, then they could spare the world much unpleasantness.

I hope eventually the US might realise that bombing everyone they don't like isn't a viable long term political strategy, and doesn't do the country any favours on an international level.

Edited May 8, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

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'.

So? Let them have their nukes. We've got ours. MAD works.

does that not presume that each party with nukes is sane?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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'.

So? Let them have their nukes. We've got ours. MAD works.

does that not presume that each party with nukes is sane?

It does. They are sane.

[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'.

So? Let them have their nukes. We've got ours. MAD works.

does that not presume that each party with nukes is sane?

It does. They are sane.

agreed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It does. They are sane.

Agreed. Its dismissive to generalise and consequently label an entire country and people simply on the basis that we don't understand them.

In any case, sanity is 'relative'. The only country who has used nuclear weapons against in war is the one who is telling other countries who can and can't have them?

Edited May 9, 2006 by Fishdude

[almaty 19]

It does. They are sane.

Agreed. Its dismissive to generalise and consequently label an entire country and people simply on the basis that we don't understand them.

In any case, sanity is 'relative'. The only country who has used nuclear weapons against in war is the one who is telling other countries who can and can't have them?

good point fish.....

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

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.

Diplomatic solution in the middle east? That's funny.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

Straw never was much more than a glorified boy scout - but its always funny when someone in high office uses totally undiplomatic language. Completely nuts! Damn straight!

[GaryC 7]

I am sure glad some of you are not running this country. First of all this nutjob that runs Iran is totally crazy. He sees himself as the savior of the muslim faith. He thinks that it is his duty to start a "clash of civilizations" in which the muslims will rule the earth. Would it be so bad if he got a nuke? Are you crazy???? If he got a nuke he would blackmail the intire region! He would control the world energy supply and most likely start WW3. He has stated, and I believe him, that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think they would sit by and let them do that? Israel will strike first if we don't stop Iran. If that happens ALL bets are off!! God! Wake up people!!! This is not some political thought game here. This is the future of the world!

[iceyspots 0]

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.

Or Kim Jung Il style re-education camps. We'll throw in free pizza, you know, lipstick on a pig.

That would be quite ironic - the people who know first hand about racial persecution and genocide end up inflicting it on someone else.

[GaryC 7]

Let me try to explain it this way. If you had a gun in your house and your neighbor had a gun in his house you would each respect the others ability to kill the other. MAD. And you would each feel safe. But suppose a insane killer escaped from prison and got a gun. Would you still feel safe? Would you still think that just having a gun would stop him from using his? No, you would feel the need to get your gun out and shoot him first if he threatend you. Iran is the same way. The pres of Iran WANTS a war! He WANTS to start a conflict because in his mind it will bring about the dominance of the radical muslim world!! If he gets a nuke he will use it. Or he will give it to a terrorist group that will use it. You cannot assume that he will respect our ability to bomb him to the stone age!

[I'm Gone 60]

That's why this has all the makings of a new world war. If the US government does go to war unilaterally it will I suspect be without the majority of public backing, which is already significantly against the war in Iraq and a major reason for Bush's piss poor performance ratings in recent polls.

If Bush even looks like he's going to invade Iran I hope he first takes a drive through Dallas with the top down. LOL

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Let me try to explain it this way. If you had a gun in your house and your neighbor had a gun in his house you would each respect the others ability to kill the other. MAD. And you would each feel safe. But suppose a insane killer escaped from prison and got a gun. Would you still feel safe? Would you still think that just having a gun would stop him from using his? No, you would feel the need to get your gun out and shoot him first if he threatend you. Iran is the same way. The pres of Iran WANTS a war!

Iran is not the same way. Mr. Ahmedinajad is not insane. He is playing off the hysteria white folk get into when they see a militaristic-sounding brown person who wants a nuke. India and Pakistan have had nukes for years now. I remember all the hysteria from white mediapersons about how dangerous that was. Well fukc them all, nukes have actually STABILIZED the south asian region. Fact, if you care to peruse the Indian/Pakistani media. The fact is brown people want to live just as much as the next guy. They're not nuts although it is common in that part of the world (India included) to engage in rhetoric that sounds to white Western ears as the talk of a madman. It's fear, they are playing on it just as they have for centuries. Wise up.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am sure glad some of you are not running this country. First of all this nutjob that runs Iran is totally crazy. He sees himself as the savior of the muslim faith. He thinks that it is his duty to start a "clash of civilizations" in which the muslims will rule the earth. Would it be so bad if he got a nuke? Are you crazy???? If he got a nuke he would blackmail the intire region! He would control the world energy supply and most likely start WW3. He has stated, and I believe him, that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think they would sit by and let them do that? Israel will strike first if we don't stop Iran. If that happens ALL bets are off!! God! Wake up people!!! This is not some political thought game here. This is the future of the world!

The future of a world we've all done a pretty good job of screwing up already.

Firstly the guy is not crazy - he may have some pretty odious political views, but like most extremists that is simply due to poor or substandard education. Unfortunately the fact that someone like that can rise to a leadership position suggests that those views are not uncommon.

In any case, I suggest you read up on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before casting judgement - he may be a racist chopfcuk but he's clearly addressing the basic day to day needs of the iranian electorate.

The question is a valid one. What right does the US have to restrict the industrial and technological development of another country, simply because it doesn't like their government?

To answer that question, you have to decide whether or not the US has some sort of moral or ethical right to police the other nations of the world. Unfortunately, there's plenty of historical evidence to suggest that US foreign policy is far from morally driven...

That's why this has all the makings of a new world war. If the US government does go to war unilaterally it will I suspect be without the majority of public backing, which is already significantly against the war in Iraq and a major reason for Bush's piss poor performance ratings in recent polls.

If Bush even looks like he's going to invade Iran I hope he first takes a drive through Dallas with the top down. LOL

Or straps himself to the first bomb

Edited May 9, 2006 by Fishdude