What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[Lisa!]

If they feel they have something to gain by it, such as in the case their rule will end, yeah I'm pretty sure they will use nuclear weapons. But they don't have to. They can indeed supply a terrorist group with a small nuclear device. They could use a nuclear arsenal as leverage to support their exported terrorism. Suppose Iran had nuclear weapons during this latest conflict and threatened to use them if Israel keeps what it calls self defence. I'm sorry, but that's not the middle east I think you and I should live in.

You want to tell me that they use nuks against a nuclear country? No matter what they gain they could only use that after their death. And do you think it's difficult for them to supply their terrorists with nuclear divices right now? They just don't need to get nuks by themselves and then give it to their terrorists!
And no Iran wouldn't threat Israel with its imaginary weapons:

1. they do believe that Isral have nuks and for sure they're not going to play with lion's tail!
2. They do not want to ruin their reputation in the world(they think they have that anyway )
3. They don't want all countries(At least US and its unions) join together against them!

So do other Arab governments but Iran never seemed to have a problem with that. Let's talk about chemical weapons use. Let's talk about suicide bombings. Let's talk about "wiping Israel off the map", as Ahmedinejad put it.

what Iranian/Iran can do towards that? Remeber I'm talking about inconsistent comments from PF'ers and not their government.(Oh their governments )

No, Iran has quite an impressive military as it is, it comes standard since Iran's such a big oil producer (with a penchant for Uranium enrichment). My problem is with nuclear weapons - which, when used, create a tragedy for generations. Suppose the tensions are high between the two countries and both militaries are at high alert. This increases the chances of mistakes happening. Now, considering the middle east's nature of being such a tense spot, do you think, as an ordinary person, that it is wise for Iran to pursue nuclear capability?

Why don't India and Pakistan use nuks against each other? Simple because both side know that a nuclear war has no winner!

That is not true. Honestly, I care for my life more than I care for other people's lives, and to different degrees I also care for every member of our race. I feel for the Chechens, I feel for the Tibetans, I feel for the Africans in Darfur, I even feel for the Palestinians. That has nothing to do with my view of which is innocent or responsible in different degrees for the suffering. Tragedies are tragedies are tragedies and we must always work to end them.

Sure we all do care about other people's lives as long as we do not think they could be a threat for them. It seems to me people here are going to take actions against anyone if they fear their life alittle!

Nations need to respect other nations. The Arab world has not respected Israel, and the Iranian leadership is continuing the facade of Arab struggle against the "Zionist threat" impersonated by the 151st largest nation in the world - that's right, 4 places higher than Fiji (Iran's 18th)! Whose worst crimes are miniscule in comparison with those perpetrated even today by Muslims and/or upon Muslims - see Darfur, see el-Hama, see the Kurds and the Ethiopians and the Palestinians themselves, back in Black September and Sabra and Shatila - that's right, the murderers are still living among the Lebanese today. The Iranian justice system regularly carries out punishments that few in Israel would even dream of inflicting upon any living thing. I care for those victims too.
Oh I appreciate. I even understand it. I don't think any less of you for thinking what you do because I'm aware that we have differences. I only ask that this will become a mutual respect. Iran needs to recognise Israel's right to exist. Iran has the right to its own foreign policy, energy initiatives and even weapons programs - no one is arguing against any of those. But it must realize that the world cannot allow it to possesses nuclear weapons technology because of its own interests. Respect us and we'll respect you. Everyone is playing this game - the Russians, the Chinese, the Americans, the French - everyone is a dirty player - even Iran, and guess what - Israel too. If Iran wants in on the big stakes it needs to bridge some gaps with the west, developing nuclear weapons is not the way to go. Look at Egypt. Look at Lybia. Look at Turkey and Jordan. They're all prosperous nations. Turkey's a good example of a secular Muslim state (and they too have a dark history). Were you alive before the revolt? My dad lived in Tehran when he was growing up. He loved every minute of it, he told what a great people the Persians are. I hope the Persian people make Iran the modern wonder it once was.

Well I still don't know how this new country suddenly appear in ME. We talked a lot about that but that doesn't convince me at all.(I might be brainwashed here, eh? ) But hey forget about that. I just want to know whether Israel respect other nations and Palestinians? I'll say no. People in Iran are no fan of Israel because they see you even kill little kids and woemn. Ya at least that's what we're watching from our Media. And well less or more that's what you've done anyway.

Israel never fired a nuclear weapon.

Against who should they do that?

I'm just as afraid it will fire one by accident as I am afraid of Iran firing one on ]purpose.
Why does it seem that way to you?

 

[Lisa!]

Sorry Gokul43201, people just don'tlet me reply to your post now but I'll do it if 1 of the mentors doesn't lock this thread before that!

I don't know. Are you absolutely, positively convinced that they won't? If so, then please share; it would be nice to have a good reason not to consider it.

Wait a minute! It's you who accuse Iran of using nuks, so since your the 1 who claimed an accusation it must be you to bring proof and reason!
As for me I for example can say, US will use NUks again un-nuclear states since they'd done before but as for Iran well I don't need to think of reasons "since you're not in charge of something as long as no one can prove it". That's what you westerns say not me!

For the record, I don't have much faith in sanity being an adequate preventative measure. Nor am I arrogant enough to think that any sane person must share my values. More explicitly: it's certainly possible that a sane person with a different belief system would find starting nuclear war a perfectly reasonable course of action.

Keep in mind the philosophy that "mutually assured destruction" is the main thing preventing nuclear war -- but do you think that the West will actually destroy Iran if it launches a nuke? More importantly, do you think Iran thinks the West will destroy it if it launches a nuke?


Anyways the point is, wishful thinking should not be the primary motivating force behind our policies. As much as is feasible, all possible courses of action should be considered, and the cost and likelyhood of all possible outcomes should be evaluated.

Alas, that probably won't happen, what with the tendancies of people on all sides of the issue to try and reduce it to an emotional appeal. But I'm still naïve enough to think it's something to be strived for.

Using nuks isagainst Islamic beliefs. Just imagine what sort of crap we read at school:
"a scientists should be a moral person. consider those scientists who developed atomic bombs... Since shouldn't be in the hand of immoral people"
Well I do not agree that the scientists who worked to get atomic bombs were immoral...anyway let's not go to discussion why I still respect them a lot despite that.

 

[Yonoz]

You want to tell me that they use nuks against a nuclear country? No matter what they gain they could only use that after their death. And do you think it's difficult for them to supply their terrorists with nuclear divices right now? They just don't need to get nuks by themselves and then give it to their terrorists!

I'm just wondering if this status quo will be maintained over the next year, decade or century.

And no Iran wouldn't threat Israel with its imaginary weapons:

1. they do believe that Isral have nuks and for sure they're not going to play with lion's tail!
2. They do not want to ruin their reputation in the world(they think they have that anyway )
3. They don't want all countries(At least US and its unions) join together against them!

I'm seriously concerned it will. Remember, it's Iran that's behind the latest suffering in Lebanon.

what Iranian/Iran can do towards that? Remeber I'm talking about inconsistent comments from PF'ers and not their government.(Oh their governments )

First off, Iran could stop sponsoring terrorism. I'm sure Kadafi will be able to give some advice to Khameinei on how to change from a terror producer with WMD factories buried inside mountains into everyone's new friend.

Why don't India and Pakistan use nuks against each other? Simple because both side know that a nuclear war has no winner!

I'm sure that many PF'ers will be happy to provide you with examples of near catastrophies during the cold war.

Sure we all do care about other people's lives as long as we do not think they could be a threat for them. It seems to me people here are going to take actions against anyone if they fear their life alittle!

Perhaps, but only after they try to solve the problem by diplomatic means.

Well I still don't know how this new country suddenly appear in ME. We talked a lot about that but that doesn't convince me at all.(I might be brainwashed here, eh? ) But hey forget about that. I just want to know whether Israel respect other nations and Palestinians? I'll say no. People in Iran are no fan of Israel because they see you even kill little kids and woemn. Ya at least that's what we're watching from our Media. And well less or more that's what you've done anyway.

We have our disagreements and problems, but we don't make death threats against anyone, especially not the Palestinians. We don't see you as one single entity, don't see us as one. So far, Iran's behaviour only distances us from peace.

Against who should they do that?

You said:

So what you're afarid of is tasting alittle of what you force others to taste.

I'm just wondering who tasted nuclear warfare by Israel.

Nuclear weapons are usually not kept ready to be fired. When tensions increase, nuclear powers raise the alertness of their arsenal, increasing the risk of mistakes and malfunctions. That is why I'm worried a nuclear war will unintentionally erupt whether by Israel or by Iran.

 

[Lisa!]

Sorry, I didn't read much of this thread, but...

Neither did I!

One of my friends asked me this weekend what I thought about Iran's nuclear ambitions and I told him that because they are ruled by a coalition of clerics and not an individual madman (ie, N. Korea), there likely is a collective logic behind what they do. Li'l Kim could stub his toe, get mad, and launch a bunch of missiles at Seoul, but such a thing is far less likely when you have a bureacracy - even a fanatical one - to deal with.

For that reason, I think Iran's rhetoric is almost exclusively a bargaining tactic.

And what's the situation in US?
See Russ, these coalition of clerics don't want to lose their power at any price!
Anyway I don't mind if there would be control on Iran's nuclear plans in order to prevent them from getting nuks. But I have to admit that I've decided to leave here if they stop their nuclear plans. well that's because nuclear physics/technology is my favorite area of science. And that's been my interst even before I'd have any idea of what the hell politic is.

 

[russ_watters]

bargaining for what?

This:

On Tuesday, Iran responded to package of incentives from the Security Council's five permanent members and Germany aimed at enticing it to halt enrichment.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-26-iran_x.htm

It's a beautiful thing, really, if you're a rogue nation: Start doing something bad and the UN may just pay you to stop! So even if they have no intention of building weapons, they play the part of the crazy rogue nation because there is no real downside and lots of upside.

 

[Lisa!]

I'm seriously concerned it will. Remember, it's Iran that's behind the latest suffering in Lebanon.

I'm really speechless here!

First off, Iran could stop sponsoring terrorism. I'm sure Kadafi will be able to give some advice to Khameinei on how to change from a terror producer with WMD factories buried inside mountains into everyone's new friend.

well let's say all countries should do that. by terrorists you mean hezbullah, eh?
But waite a minute I don't understand what you're talking about.(sorry my English isn't good so I'm afaid of misunderstanding you)Plese clarify this quote for me
"So do other Arab governments but Iran never seemed to have a problem with that. Let's talk about chemical weapons use. Let's talk about suicide bombings. Let's talk about "wiping Israel off the map", as Ahmedinejad put it.
"

I'm sure that many PF'ers will be happy to provide you with examples of near catastrophies during the cold war.

I'll be glad too!

Perhaps, but only after they try to solve the problem by diplomatic means.

Ok you know what's going to happen, then!

We have our disagreements and problems, but we don't make death threats against anyone, especially not the Palestinians. We don't see you as one single entity, don't see us as one. So far, Iran's behaviour only distances us from peace.

Sure you do not make threats! You just kill them.

You said:

I'm just wondering who tasted nuclear warfare by Israel.

I was referring to western people not Israel. but tell me whom Israel should use nuks against?

Nuclear weapons are usually not kept ready to be fired. When tensions increase, nuclear powers raise the alertness of their arsenal, increasing the risk of mistakes and malfunctions. That is why I'm worried a nuclear war will unintentionally erupt whether by Israel or by Iran.

The only thing I know is that I think no country should have nuks. People in other countries are alsoafraid of US and other nations to have nuks, they just can't trust their administration! And you know what scare them more than nuclear countries is that since they don't have nuks other countries might not hesitate using nuks against them!

 

[Anttech]

I'm seriously concerned it will. Remember, it's Iran that's behind the latest suffering in Lebanon.

Ehh? How did you work that out? Hezbollah may have got its arms from Iran. Israel got there's from the US, your point is? Hezbollah captured soliders from Israel with the intent of exchanging prisoners. ISRAEL desided to not negotiate, ISRAEL desided to shell the cr@p out of Lebanon. That is what happened. You cannot expect anyone to swallow such a sour pill as that!

 

[kyleb]

This: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-26-iran_x.htm

It's a beautiful thing, really, if you're a rogue nation: Start doing something bad and the UN may just pay you to stop! So even if they have no intention of building weapons, they play the part of the crazy rogue nation because there is no real downside and lots of upside.

There is plenty of downside when the world is looking at kicking their asses and they are left with living under the threat of that or accepting the terms we offer them. Iran isn't the one proposing the bargaining here.

 

[Yonoz]

Sure you do not make threats! You just kill them.

I'd be happy to continue our discussion when you take me seriously.

 

[Yonoz]

Ehh? How did you work that out? Hezbollah may have got its arms from Iran. Israel got there's from the US, your point is? Hezbollah captured soliders from Israel with the intent of exchanging prisoners. ISRAEL desided to not negotiate, ISRAEL desided to shell the cr@p out of Lebanon. That is what happened. You cannot expect anyone to swallow such a sour pill as that!

And I suppose Israel is supposed to swallow the sour pill of an Iranian proxy constantly shelling and attacking it across an internationally recognised border with the complicity of the Lebanese government.
How quickly history is rewritten.
No double standards eh?

 

[Lisa!]

I'd be happy to continue our discussion when you take me seriously.

I think of murdering and death as serious matters!

 

[TuviaDaCat]

Ehh? How did you work that out? Hezbollah may have got its arms from Iran. Israel got there's from the US, your point is? Hezbollah captured soliders from Israel with the intent of exchanging prisoners. ISRAEL desided to not negotiate, ISRAEL desided to shell the cr@p out of Lebanon. That is what happened. You cannot expect anyone to swallow such a sour pill as that!

hizbulla is an organization that calls for the destruction of israel, not the army of lebanon, they showed how they care nothing for lebanon by using weapons from civil areas, which makes our bombs fall on civil areas.

so now let me ask you a simple question, iran and syria calls for the destruction of israel, and so hizbulla. hizbulla gets lots of missiles from iran, and budgets for bunckers in south lebanon. that's were iran is in the story, if not their aid, there would be no war to be done and no civs to be killed. we are not aggressors, and the US doesn't give us weapon to butcher civs, but to protect ours(ofcours that they have their own interests).

so a terror organization has loads of missiles in south lebanon. why would they have thousands of missiles in south lebanon? for what purpose?

obviously people don't get that the two people abducted is nothing but the spark, they were planning on attacking israel with mass of missiles when people of israel walk in the street unaware of any danger. such thing would cause the death of thousands...

so let's call it a counter attack.

 

[Anttech]

And I suppose Israel is supposed to swallow the sour pill of an Iranian proxy constantly shelling and attacking it across an internationally recognised border with the complicity of the Lebanese government.

Yonzo, you shelled Lebanon first, Hezbollah (The resistance/Terrorist) shelled you back... The Lebanese government were not complying they were not getting involved, how could they? They don't control Hezbollah (we have already argued this point, so let's not bother again).. It seems ssssooooooooooooo easy for you to push and spin the blame any which you deside. Yes Iran supplied the weapons, Yes Iran don't like Zionists, but you have to face the simple facts here. YOU shelled Lebanon ISRAEL did that! ISRAEL killed 1500 people for 2 soliders. THAT is what happened! FACT!

 

[russ_watters]

There is plenty of downside when the world is looking at kicking their asses and they are left with living under the threat of that or accepting the terms we offer them.

The downside only exists if:

1. They think the threat of invasion is credible. I don't think it is, and I suspect they do not either.

2. They desperately want nuclear weapons. If they don't desperately want nuclear weapons, then like I said: pretending you do works great as a bargaining tactic.

Iran isn't the one proposing the bargaining here.

Yes, I know. More beauty: if a rogue nation starts threatening people, the UN falls all over itself to reward them. They don't even have to ask!

Extortion really is effortless when the UN is just a bunch of people who like to hear themselves talk.

 

[Lisa!]

I appreciate Lisa!'s input. It must be difficult to read this material, where so many are talking about one's country and the 'speculation' of war.

Thanks but I have difficulty in responding to posts not reading them since I'm not a native speaker!
You know if I know we can't stop a war nore we can start 1 by this discussion. To be honest I'm just bored and that's why I'm here.(I used to be an active meber here since there was lots of things I wanted to ask and well I thought I might be clarify something sometimes)
Honestly I'm going to conclusion that dialogs don't work as long as we don't have consistent standards. If nuks are bad and dangerous, no country shouldn't have them. If you want other nations respect your independence, you should alos respect theirs. So I guess our governments also don't get anywhere by dialogs as long as they just want to impose their own views on each other.
Well I guess I won't come here anymore when I get back to my work again!

 

[TuviaDaCat]

Yonzo, you shelled Lebanon first, Hezbollah (The resistance/Terrorist) shelled you back... The Lebanese government were not complying they were not getting involved, how could they? They don't control Hezbollah (we have already argued this point, so let's not bother again).. It seems ssssooooooooooooo easy for you to push and spin the blame any which you deside. Yes Iran supplied the weapons, Yes Iran don't like Zionists, but you have to face the simple facts here. YOU shelled Lebanon ISRAEL did that! ISRAEL killed 1500 people for 2 soliders. THAT is what happened! FACT!

wow, what a great simplification, israel killed 1500 people for 2 soliders...
and i heard nothing of 1500 people dying.

what about the missles being gathered in south lebanon? in houses btw.
and what about us being attacked from civil areas? should we just be matyrs and not shot back the aggressors?

war is war, and when one side asks for it, the other must answer. there is no negotioation, or dialog with the one who wants you dead as an astral idiology. and if it costs civs on the other side so be it.
talk about human rights all you want, but a mother will always prefer her child alive than anothers alive.

its ignorant to simplfy it as if it was a math of how much people died on each side, I am sick and tired that people seem to sympathise the weak, while ignoring the circumstances.

 

[kyleb]

The downside only exists if:

1. They think the threat of invasion is credible. I don't think it is, and I suspect they do not either.

2. They desperately want nuclear weapons. If they don't desperately want nuclear weapons, then like I said: pretending you do works great as a bargaining tactic. Yes, I know. More beauty: if a rogue nation starts threatening people, the UN falls all over itself to reward them. They don't even have to ask!

Extortion really is effortless when the UN is just a bunch of people who like to hear themselves talk.

Yeah, sure, they are just itching to get us to impose further limits on their freedoms and agree to deals which obligates them be dependent on purchasing supplies from other nations rather than using their own natural resources. How sneaky.

 

[Anttech]

what about the missles being gathered in south lebanon? in houses btw.
and what about us being attacked from civil areas? should we just be matyrs and not shot back the aggressors?

"If I knew the process of capturing [these soldiers], even with a 1% probability, would lead to a war like this, and then if you asked me would you go and capture them, my answer would be, of course, no — for humanitarian, moral, social and security reasons," said Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of the Shiite Muslim militant group.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...lah28aug28,0,3004638.story?coll=la-home-world

They wanted to negotate, you didnt...

 

[Bystander]

From #62,

The president of Iran does appear to be a bit crazy, at least to westerners. But that does not mean that he is crazy enough to bring about his own incineration.(snip)

and, from #3,

Iran has 53,000 suicide bombers on stand by.

and, from WHO, http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suicide_rates_chart/en/index.html ,

suicide rates run 20-30 per hundred thousand for males 15-34 years of age.

Crazy enough? Arguably crazier than "the average bear."

 

[TuviaDaCat]

They wanted to negotate, you didnt...

did u not hear me? hizbulla had missiles in the north! it want lebanon's army, but hizbulaa! ofcours they wanted to negotiate, they wanted to surprize us with a missile attack.

there are two conditons here:
if u actully believe that hizbulla is there to pretect lebanon, then this conversation is of no use.

if u believe that they are here to whipe israel(which they do not deny) with no conditions, then u should aready understand that the missiles purpuse, and the nessecity of counter attacking.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, sure, they are just itching to get us to impose further limits on their freedoms

Explain, please. What are the current limits and what are the new limits? And why isn't the trade worthwhile? And can we really stop them with words? (see: N. Korea)

...and agree to deals which obligates them be dependent on purchasing supplies from other nations rather than using their own natural resources. How sneaky.

I'm not sure how you can see free money as a bad thing. Can you explain that?

Right now the deal would be that Iran would pledge not to build a nuclear bomb and in exchange they would get a free nuclear reactor. Can you guess what they might do once that reactor is in place...? (hint: again, see N. Korea)

http://www.boston.com/news/world/ar...posed_iran_deal_bush_might_have_to_waive_law/

The terms of the proposed deal, as reported in the European and American press, would involve the United States and European nations providing Iran with a light-water nuclear reactor [and] technology to produce electricity.

For the uranium:

Russia offered to bring uranium from Iran, enrich it in Russia and gather the spent fuel to assure it was not diverted for military purposes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031200275.html

Wow, a free reactor and they'll enrich our uranium for free and collect our waste for free! And all we have to do is act menacing!

 

[Cyrus]

Did anyone see the movie, "The Sum Of All Fears"? There the terrorists delivered nuclear weapons disguised as Coke machines, as long as it delivers Coke until it goes off nobody would take any notice.

Yes, Iran will hide nuclear bombs in zam zam machines!

You saw it in a moive... !

 

[Hurkyl]

Wait a minute! It's you who accuse Iran of using nuks, so since your the 1 who claimed an accusation it must be you to bring proof and reason!

(1) First off, I made no such accusation. My point all along is that it's a possibility that needs to be considered.

(2) Secondly, you have claimed (or at least strongly implied) that Iran won't be using nukes. So that requires you to bring proof and reason. It doesn't matter if I have made a claim or not -- you can't get away with making unjustified claims just because (you think) you're retorting to someone else's arguments.

Using nuks isagainst Islamic beliefs.

So? We're not discussing whether or not Islamic beliefs are planning on using nukes!

 

[Yonoz]

Yonzo, you shelled Lebanon first, Hezbollah (The resistance/Terrorist) shelled you back... The Lebanese government were not complying they were not getting involved, how could they? They don't control Hezbollah (we have already argued this point, so let's not bother again).. It seems ssssooooooooooooo easy for you to push and spin the blame any which you deside. Yes Iran supplied the weapons, Yes Iran don't like Zionists, but you have to face the simple facts here. YOU shelled Lebanon ISRAEL did that! ISRAEL killed 1500 people for 2 soliders. THAT is what happened! FACT!

I suggest you review your simple facts - who shelled first, who fires intentionally at civilians and who is Iran's proxy.

It's time you started looking at this like an "alien". Like humans study other lifeforms. There is no "big bad bully on the block". There are many shades of gray.

 

[Cyrus]

The Iranian leadership does not hate Jews as long as they live under Muslim rule.
Let us drop the absurd pretence Iran is developing nuclear weapons to support the Palestinians. As I previously stated, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre" .

What a bunch of nonsense Yonoz. The US government cooperates with dictators as well. Whats your point? Is all you do speculation and opinion?

 

[Anttech]

I suggest you review your simple facts - who shelled first, who fires intentionally at civilians and who is Iran's proxy

Well Israel shelled first, Israel were firing at civilians, and Hezbollah is helped out by Iran..

3/3? do I get a star?

 

[Yonoz]

They wanted to negotate, you didnt...

Aren't we forgetting a little kidnapping? Is that an acceptable negotiation practice? Or are we simply ignoring it for some other reason?

 

[Anttech]

Aren't we forgetting a little kidnapping? Is that an acceptable negotiation practice? Or are we simply ignoring it for some other reason?

You don't kidnap Soliders, you take prisoners... Even the media is making the destintion now... They took the prisioner so they could negotiate the relase of *kidnaped* Hezbollah personelle. THAT is how they saw it. You should have done the swap, rather than shelled the crap out of Lebanon. They didnt want the war, they wanted an exchange.

 

[Cyrus]

If they feel they have something to gain by it, such as in the case their rule will end, yeah I'm pretty sure they will use nuclear weapons.

Wow more of your speculation and opinon Yonoz?...

So do other Arab governments but Iran never seemed to have a problem with that. Let's talk about chemical weapons use. Let's talk about suicide bombings. Let's talk about "wiping Israel off the map", as Ahmedinejad put it.

Ok, like the Chemical weapons the US gave to Iraq to use on Iran? Oh, give us all a break Yonoz...

No, Iran has quite an impressive military as it is, it comes standard since Iran's such a big oil producer (with a penchant for Uranium enrichment).

Yes, they do. Look at what they did to your warship on the coast of lebanon. They crippled it with a missile.

Suppose the tensions are high between the two countries and both militaries are at high alert. This increases the chances of mistakes happening. Now, considering the middle east's nature of being such a tense spot, do you think, as an ordinary person, that it is wise for Iran to pursue nuclear capability?

They arleady are and Iran is not sending any missiles at Israel are they. So what's your point?

Nations need to respect other nations.

The Iranian justice system regularly carries out punishments that few in Israel would even dream of inflicting upon any living thing. I care for those victims too.

If you care so much free all the lebanese and palestinians in your jails by the thousands, and stop giving one sided stories Yonoz...

Iran has the right to its own foreign policy, energy initiatives and even weapons programs - no one is arguing against any of those.

Yes you are, you are arguing against that.

But it must realize that the world cannot allow it to possesses nuclear weapons technology because of its own interests.

Right, and Israel should not have them either. Their over reaction in Lebanon proves this.

I hope the Persian people make Iran the modern wonder it once was.

Don't worry, they will. But this time it will be modern without being a puppet for the CIA.

Israel never fired a nuclear weapon. I'm just as afraid it will fire one by accident as I am afraid of Iran firing one on purpose.
Why does it seem that way to you?

You don't fire nuclear weapons 'by accident'

 

[TuviaDaCat]

You don't kidnap Soliders, you take prisoners... Even the media is making the destintion now... They took the prisioner so they could negotiate the relase of *kidnaped* Hezbollah personelle. THAT is how they saw it. You should have done the swap, rather than shelled the crap out of Lebanon. They didnt want the war, they wanted an exchange.

prisoners? they entered israeli terrain.

btw, aout the swap, they ussualy make crazy propositions, minimum, they would ask for 300 man for 2 man.

 

[Yonoz]

What a bunch of nonsense Yonoz.

Why, is any of it untrue? Do you disagree with any of my comments? Feel free to post the comment you find so nonsensical we'll discuss it.

The US government cooperates with dictators as well. Whats your point?

My point is that the US does not wish to wipe entire nations off the map. My point is that the US does not hide the fact that it is acting on its own best interests (a rare quality these days). My point is that the US does not intentionally harm civilians. My point is that any US paper can criticize the American administration to its readers' hearts' content without being shut down. My point is that the US has a fine history of getting this world out of a mess. Everyone on the planet knows when the US president gets a b*** job, while Iranian diplomatic personnel are in fact terrorists par excellence.

Is all you do speculation and opinion?

I also do bar-mitzvahs.

 

[Anttech]

prisoners? they entered israeli terrain.

Depends which media you read really, there is a lot of evidence that states that Hezbollah captured the soliders in Lebanon! If you take a look at this link http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html

Ignore the opinion of the writer, that is not what we are conserned with here, and just look at the news sources that are linked in, you will see there are many mainstream media sources that believe (and have printed) the Israeli soliders where captured in Lebanon.

Israel also seem to use the word kidnap, when their soliders go missing in Gaza...

Anyway regardless of where it happened, what we do know is Hezbollah clashed with Israeli forces, then the 2 IDF soliders were taken back to Lebanon

 

[Cyrus]

Why, is any of it untrue? Do you disagree with any of my comments? Feel free to post the comment you find so nonsensical we'll discuss it.
My point is that the US does not wish to wipe entire nations off the map. My point is that the US does not hide the fact that it is acting on its own best interests (a rare quality these days). My point is that the US does not intentionally harm civilians. My point is that any US paper can criticize the American administration to its readers' hearts' content without being shut down. My point is that the US has a fine history of getting this world out of a mess. Everyone on the planet knows when the US president gets a b*** job, while Iranian diplomatic personnel are in fact terrorists par excellence.

I also do bar-mitzvahs.

Mazel-tov!

I will post more later.

 

[Yonoz]

You don't kidnap Soliders, you take prisoners... Even the media is making the destintion now... They took the prisioner so they could negotiate the relase of *kidnaped* Hezbollah personelle.

Please tell me, who are these *kidnapped* personnel? Are Israeli lives meaningless to you? Is there nothing out of the ordinary, in your opinion, in killing and kidnapping soldiers in a cross border raid? While shelling nearby bases and civilian population centres? Is this part of the negotiation? Please enlighten me, I would like to hear, in depth, exactly what your thoughts are on this practice, repeated 3 times already.

THAT is how they saw it.

Maybe. I hope they see it differently now.

You should have done the swap, rather than shelled the crap out of Lebanon.

Let's keep the superlatives to a minimum. No one shelled the crap out of Lebanon. Israel handed Lebanon Hizbullah bodies free-of-charge as a goodwill gesture less than a year ago. It has received nothing in return. Hizbullah has no sovereignty, it is not a state nor a liberation movement - there's simply nothing left for them to liberate. It is the Lebanese government's job to negotiate with Israel, Hizbullah has 3 ministers in that government and that is the legitimate channel for it to operate in.

They didnt want the war, they wanted an exchange.

Well I guess they just didn't have their way then.

 

[Yonoz]

Wow more of your speculation and opinon Yonoz?...

It's as good as anyone's.

Ok, like the Chemical weapons the US gave to Iraq to use on Iran? Oh, give us all a break Yonoz...

Actually, that was Europe. But yeah, just like those ones.

Yes, they do. Look at what they did to your warship on the coast of lebanon. They crippled it with a missile.

Glad to see you recognise that was Iranian work.

They arleady are and Iran is not sending any missiles at Israel are they. So what's your point?

Obviously, you're not a golfer. There is no reason to arm a nuclear arsenal if your opponent doesn't have one, is there? So there can't be any accidents, can there? If Iran does develop a nuclear arsenal, Israel will have to arm its missiles, won't it? So will Iran - and then you have a dangerous situation quite different from the current one.

If you care so much free all the lebanese and palestinians in your jails by the thousands, and stop giving one sided stories Yonoz...

Just a sec, I'll get the key.
Do you care any less for a child you punish? Do you not care for all the prisoners in other countries' prisons? Do you not care for a stray animal you leave out in the cold? Different shades of grey.

Yes you are, you are arguing against that.

No I'm not, I'm arguing against a nuclear capability. There are other solutions to whatever problems Iran wishes to address that can not coincidentally be used to make atomic weapons. Iran for some reason - god knows what - does not wish to discuss any of those options.

Right, and Israel should not have them either. Their over reaction in Lebanon proves this.

Speculation and opinion, was it?

You don't fire nuclear weapons 'by accident'

That's right. Accidents do not happen in the military.