Is that a sabre rattling in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Ever google a posters nickname?

Pure Gold.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Pure Gold.

I wasn't going to be the first one....Flash is that you?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I wasn't going to be the first one....Flash is that you?

Naturally.

I was doing something innapropriate to rogan and got caught. Had to make with the quick and swift ninja dodge.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You think the US is bluffing as far as air strikes are concerned? They might not have the troops to invade Iraq, but they certainly have the firepower. Same thing with Israel...

Israel won't be invading anybody, especially a nation like Iran which isn't even adjacent to them.

As for the question of bluffing--I don't pretend to know the intentions of the U.S. administration. That would be like trying to understand the thoughts of a crazy person. I do think their mouths are writing checks that their collective asses can't cash. Iran is not afraid of air strikes. They have a vastly different landscape and a vastly larger area than Iraq does--and a vastly larger capability to respond in kind. Their connections to international terrorist groups, ability to funnel weapons into Iraq (yes, I know there's no "evidence"--but I think they probably are doing it--it just makes sense) their ability to launch missiles at oilfields across the straits....

Going to war with Iran would be an insane idea. Does the administration relish such a war? I have to think that even they realize how insane that is. But you never know. What I do suspect is that they are vastly overestimating Iran's fear of such a conflict.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, I asked you a question, what are the qualifications for being a nuclear power?

What are the qualifications for a nation to develop its own nuclear program? I would probably suggest not violating international law and having a trustworthy, transparent government. Iran fits neither criterion.

You consider Iran to be a brutally oppressive theocracy, and yet you consider there actions and motives pure when it comes to that theocracy's nuclear program. That is interesting.

I think arsenal put it best, "any nation that has publically stated that another nation should not exist should be reason to not allow them nuclear weapons." I guess you were waiting to hear me say it though?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If safety is a concern, wouldn't a nation that hasn't attacked a neighbour in a thousand year have a good track record? Doesn't prior history count at all?

Why should it count for anything? A man with no prior convictions can still be found guilty for committing a crime (or conspiracy to commit a crime). (And this is no less true when this same man is a schizophrenic who has undergone many personality changes over the course of his lifetime.)

I'm still waiting for you to contribute something other than a weak attack at minor, contextless, parts of my argument. I mean, you aren't even attempting to refute me, You're just burning straw men.

Does anyone want to seriously discuss this, or are we all happy to jitterbug down the road?

I am still waiting for you to justify why you feel so comfortable with Iran developing nuclear technology under an outlandish leader only Islamic conservatives and radicals still support, considering that it has been doing so in violation of international agreements and UN resolutions.

I am still waiting for you to indicate why you think Iran's history, predating Ahmadinejad, predating the deposition of the Shah, predating the advent of nuclear technology, and predating international law as we know it is relevant to Iran's actions today and tomorrow. It really makes no sense. By this logic, we should be worrying about Mongolia instead.

I am still waiting for you to contribute something other than a weak argument.