What can be done? Iran

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

I guess that explains the earthquakes in California.

Adult Film Industry = Many Earthquakes

The logic is airtight.

I'm sure that was the estimable cleric's logic too... California: many whores & earthquakes; ipso facto...

[IliketoPuck]

Gratuitous J. Haze photo incoming?

[IliketoPuck]

Seriously though, I truly hope that the Iranian people can stand up for themselves and get rid of the current management.

I don't blame the Israeli's, or anyone else for that matter not wanting these hardliner's having access to nuclear weapons.

Pre-emptive action is hard to justify though, so Israel has to tread carefully. I agree with a previous poster that a somewhat neutral country taking action in the whole affair would make a pre-emptive strike a bit more palatable. However it might just re-trench current management, which is just not a good solution.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

However it might just re-trench current management, which is just not a good solution.

Hard to tell what the reaction on the Iranian streets might be. It could entrench them by making them seem under attack. It could also make them seem weak providing an opportunity for the Green movement to surge.

[IliketoPuck]

And it could go either way.

But the one way you don't want it to go is more hard-line.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

I agree with a previous poster that a somewhat neutral country taking action in the whole affair would make a pre-emptive strike a bit more palatable. However it might just re-trench current management, which is just not a good solution.

The problem is, who?

France? Britain? Germany?

I don't think any of them have the guts to do it. Even if Iran having nuclear weapons effects them more than it does us here in North America.

[PIMking]

The Germans wont attack anyone anymore until they are attacked first.

[IliketoPuck]

The point is moot. No western ally will pre empt without the states in the thick of it.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Was going to start a new thread but decided to put in here.

With the United States pushing for new international sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt its nuclear program, Ahmadinejad said Saturday that his nation "cuts any hand that signs a document against Iran," according to the semiofficial FARS news agency.

Ahmadinejad began his trip a day after saying he has proof that the United States and Israel are linked to the world's leading terrorist organizations, according to state-run media.

"We have documents that prove [Washington] is the root of world terrorism," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in Tehran, Press TV reported. "It has been aiding and abetting extremist groups over the past years."

The United States "is the only country to have used the atomic bomb in military conflict," Ahmadinejad said Saturday, according to Press TV. "They even admit themselves that they resorted to using [similar weapons] during the war they waged on Iraq."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/...ex.html?hpt=T2

[Muta]

Doesn't Iran support groups like Hezbollah and al Qaeda in Iraq?

If so, what a hypocrite.

And if he has documents, how would Iran, of all entities, have documented proof?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PIMking

The Germans wont attack anyone anymore until they are attacked first.

I wouldn't bet on it. In fact, one of the reasons the U.S. interfered in the Balkan wars in the 1990s was because Germany had a lot of investments in the areas and started to comment on how they would have have to do something to stablize the area (which Russia indicated that any German intervention would bring them into the war). Obviously the implications would have been huge, so the U.S. orchestrated a few operations in Croatia and Bosnia and implemented the Dayton Accord. A lot of people don't realize how close things were to blowing up if not for the Clinton administrations slick antics.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Muta

Doesn't Iran support groups like Hezbollah and al Qaeda in Iraq?

If so, what a hypocrite.

And if he has documents, how would Iran, of all entities, have documented proof?

This whole "what should be done about Iran" business is based on hypocrisy, so we shouldn't begrudge them for getting in on it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

This whole "what should be done about Iran" business is based on hypocrisy, so we shouldn't begrudge them for getting in on it.

There is nothing hyprocritical about not wanting an enemy(who publically proclaims a desire for your destruction and privately plots for it through terrorism) to have a bomb that could wipe out your country. Israel would be crazy to sit back and just hope Iran isn't as crazy as it seems.

[Ford Prefect]

Nm

[T@T]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

This whole "what should be done about Iran" business is based on hypocrisy, so we shouldn't begrudge them for getting in on it.

What hypocrisy?
There's a big difference in ending a war with a nuke than starting one.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There is nothing hyprocritical about not wanting an enemy(who publically proclaims a desire for your destruction and privately plots for it through terrorism) to have a bomb that could wipe out your country. Israel would be crazy to sit back and just hope Iran isn't as crazy as it seems.

There is something hypocritical about nuclear-armed countries who are always getting into wars bitching about another country that hasn't started a war in forever being too dangerous to be trusted.

I don't want Iran to have nukes either, but I know it's a hypocritical opinion.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There is something hypocritical about nuclear-armed countries who are always getting into wars bitching about another country that hasn't started a war in forever being too dangerous to be trusted.

I don't want Iran to have nukes either, but I know it's a hypocritical opinion.

Wake up.

Without world watchdogs such as the USA and it's allies this world would be in shambles.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There is something hypocritical about nuclear-armed countries who are always getting into wars bitching about another country that hasn't started a war in forever being too dangerous to be trusted.

I don't want Iran to have nukes either, but I know it's a hypocritical opinion.

Yes, because all those 'other' countries with nukes are run by a bunch of fundamental wackos. There is a clearly a difference between even Pakistan and Iran.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There is something hypocritical about nuclear-armed countries who are always getting into wars bitching about another country that hasn't started a war in forever being too dangerous to be trusted.

I don't want Iran to have nukes either, but I know it's a hypocritical opinion.

Just because Iran hasn't been actively in a war since their battle against Iraq doesn't mean that they haven't been fighting wars by proxy.

Their funding of radical terrorist groups, along with arming and training these nut bars. that actively attack Israel and Iraq to me is the same thing as sending infantry and tanks into other countries.

Personally I don't want a country with real links to the lunatic fringe having access to nuclear bomb technology or even nuclear technology.

How long would it take for those religious lunatics in Iran to accidentally lose material due to bad book keeping that ends up in a dirty bomb blowing up in the middle of Israel.

[Azure]

^^^which would basically trigger WW3.