hell they would be stupid to not work out contingency plans.

Hobodeluxe: hell they would be stupid to not work out contingency plans.

This, yeah.

It's not like other countries haven't been madly saber-rattling at them for a while now.

Should any Iraq lessons be applied to Iran?

CNN (ex. AIPAC Blitzer) on our new "huge, huge bomb" to use against Iran


Groan.

The only thing that striking their nuclear facilities will accomplish is cementing their existing power structure and guaranteeing they'll develop nuclear weapons.

Hobodeluxe: hell they would be stupid to not work out contingency plans.

Definitely, in case Israel would be stupid enough to attack them.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

Marcus Aurelius: guaranteeing they'll develop nuclear weapons.

They are going to do that regardless.

Haha, now that your plans are out the people on Twitter are going to come for you and they will turn their avatars green and repost false news and accuse people of being government agents until your little puppet regime falls again.

Painful limerick fail, subby.

We now return you to your scheduled flamewar, already in progress.

frowns on your shenanigans Subby

haha yeah bro I got my flamesuit on and my flame-proof popcorn gonna sit down and watch a little flaming going on epic fail all your base play m eoff Garfield without Garfield cat

On the one hand, I'd like to see what would happen if we stopped enforcing sanctions and the like on these smaller "rogue" states--let Iran + North Korea do what they want, but on the other, I'm worried about what happens when you try to appease radical dictators. Anyone have any thoughts?

reimanr06: On the one hand, I'd like to see what would happen if we stopped enforcing sanctions and the like on these smaller "rogue" states--let Iran + North Korea do what they want, but on the other, I'm worried about what happens when you try to appease radical dictators. Anyone have any thoughts?

Nuke it from orbit just to be sure.

Aww, how cute, he thinks he can stop us if we actually wanted to attack.

I love "glass parking lot" jokes. Mass-murder of millions of innocents is so funny!

/Yea, yea, Lighten up Francis

Mitch Rapp is really getting a kick out of all this.

I think it would be plenty funny to fly over their simulations to photograph them just to tell them that they have no defense.

I find myself caring about more important things than who Israel is afraid of next....

I'm less worried about Iran making a bomb than them selling one to anyone who has the cash. That's where the real threat is.

I can't believe Israel hasn't gone in and bombed their facility like they previously did.

Nescio quid dicas: Aww, how cute, he thinks he can stop us if we actually wanted to attack.

It's important to make sure that the world's 1,000,000,000 Muslims know that we're killing 'em for their own good.

I can't believe Israel hasn't gone in and bombed their facility like they previously did.

Because Iran is a sovereign nation with an elected government and has the right to pursue the technology. That could be one reason...

Then again, if China doesn't like our nuclear program or feels we could use it for bad measures, you would surely agree they can just arbitrarily bomb our nuke sites as well, correct?

Oh, wait.....no. It only works when it takes place over there.

Tsar_Bomba1: I'm less worried about Iran making a bomb than them selling one to anyone who has the cash. That's where the real threat is.

I can't believe Israel hasn't gone in and bombed their facility like they previously did.

I thought Israel bombed a site in Iraq, not Iran. Maybe they did it to both countries.

I'm sure the Israelis are watching carefully, since this will pinpoint all the Iranian nuclear sites for them.

logistic: Because Iran is a sovereign nation with an elected government and has the right to pursue the technology. That could be one reason...

Please, tell me more about how a bunch of cracked Islamists acquiring nuclear weapons is a Good Thing®. If you don't see the difference between NATO member countries and primitive theocracies, your opinion is unworthy of consideration.

Hey, "Israel"... isn't that the country that won't let in any nuclear inspectors or sign non-proliferation treaties? The one with a vast undisclosed nuclear arsenal and a particularly aggressive foreign policy?

SeamusFerrell: Tsar_Bomba1: I'm less worried about Iran making a bomb than them selling one to anyone who has the cash. That's where the real threat is.

I can't believe Israel hasn't gone in and bombed their facility like they previously did.

I thought Israel bombed a site in Iraq, not Iran. Maybe they did it to both countries.

Alright everyone. Isreal bombed Syria. Not Iran, not Iraq - Syria.

/Carry on.

The Face Of Oblivion
how a bunch of cracked Islamists acquiring nuclear weapons is a Good Thing®

Please explain how China's actions in Tibet are a Good Thing®.

Just because something isn't a Good Thing®, doesn't mean we ought to rush in with guns ablaze.

mrexcess: Please explain how China's actions in Tibet are a Good Thing®.

Just because something isn't a Good Thing®, doesn't mean we ought to rush in with guns ablaze.

China's actions in Tibet don't implicate any American interests other than the self-righteous wankery of a few leftover Pearl Jam fans with the requisite stickers on their Civic hatchbacks. Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, on the other hand, poses a real risk to the US and Europe.

The Face Of Oblivion: logistic: Because Iran is a sovereign nation with an elected government and has the right to pursue the technology. That could be one reason...

Please, tell me more about how a bunch of cracked Islamists Christians acquiring nuclear weapons is a Good Thing®. If you don't see the difference between NATO member countries and primitive theocracies, your opinion is unworthy of consideration.

I'm just saying. America's still the only country to have used one (or two) against someone else.

mrexcess: Just because something isn't a Good Thing®, doesn't mean we ought to rush in with guns ablaze.

And no, we shouldn't. We have no need to get involved in any ground war. We're perfectly capable of enforcing things from a distance, should it come to that.

Pseudacris: SeamusFerrell: Tsar_Bomba1: I'm less worried about Iran making a bomb than them selling one to anyone who has the cash. That's where the real threat is.

I can't believe Israel hasn't gone in and bombed their facility like they previously did.

I thought Israel bombed a site in Iraq, not Iran. Maybe they did it to both countries.

Alright everyone. Isreal bombed Syria. Not Iran, not Iraq - Syria.

/Carry on.

Ahem. (new window)

Quark_Quasar: I'm just saying. America's still the only country to have used one (or two) against someone else.

The US isn't a theocracy with the habit of labeling liberal democracies "the Great Satan". But please, troll harder.

SeamusFerrell: Tsar_Bomba1: I'm less worried about Iran making a bomb than them selling one to anyone who has the cash. That's where the real threat is.

I can't believe Israel hasn't gone in and bombed their facility like they previously did.

I thought Israel bombed a site in Iraq, not Iran. Maybe they did it to both countries.

Don't matter their both in Southeast Asia

indarwinsshadow

Really, it's for peaceful, domestic uses...

2005: "Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons"
2007: "Iran stopped nuclear weapons work four years ago" (NIE)
2008: "Dear Bush, please help us with our plans to fly into Iran and so some bombing in Natanz. Signed, your friendly peace-mongering allies in Israel"

The Face Of Oblivion
Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, on the other hand, poses a real risk to the US and Europe.

How so?

I am betting a glass parking lot would not be nearly as nice or functional as it sounds. The lack of friction would cause accidents and it would get scuffed up something awful. Shouldn't we at least practice on a smaller country first?

mrexcess: How so?

Because even if you're skeptical of the idea that some religious fanatic/politico over there would use them against the West, they are a bargaining chip that Iran doesn't deserve any more than North Korea does. If and when Iranians are permitted to freely elect a government of their choosing, and they pick someone that isn't a venomous anti-Western kook, then they can have as much enriched material as they can buy.

The Face Of Oblivion
The US isn't a theocracy with the habit of labeling liberal democracies "the Great Satan".

The Shah certainly wouldn't have approved of that title. I shudder to think of what he'd have had done to anyone using it.

The Face Of Oblivion: Quark_Quasar: I'm just saying. America's still the only country to have used one (or two) against someone else.

The US isn't a theocracy with the habit of labeling liberal democracies "the Great Satan". But please, troll harder.

I'm not arguing, obviously those nuts don't need more weapons, but americans have a tendency to ignore past transgressions where we were at fault.

The Face Of Oblivion
they are a bargaining chip that Iran doesn't deserve any more than North Korea does

You're answering a different question than was asked. I asked you how Iran acquiring nuclear weapons was a real risk to the US and Europe. Bargaining-chip, shmargaining-chip. Answer the question.

From the article...
The deal - brokered by the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency - envisages Iran sending about 70% of its low-enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it would be processed into fuel rods for a research reactor in Tehran.

Such a process would prevent Iran enriching uranium to the degree necessary to make a bomb, the UN says.

But Iran has rejected a key part of the deal, seeking further guarantees.

That's a little bit lacking in information. I believe the "key part" of the deal that Iran is rejecting is that France wants Iran to hand over the full 70% of its stockpile upfront, with zero garauntee they'll give it back beyond a simple promise. Iran, however, wants to hand over a little bit at a time to make sure that the west lives up to their end of the deal, which seems like a perfectly reasonable position to me. The fact that France called foul as soon as Iran raised the issue makes me think they had no plan of ever following through in the first place, and Iran knows that now.


Also, as for Iran selling a bomb to a terrorist group or someone... that's not going to happen. The leaders of Iran like being in power. They've gone to extensive lengths to ensure that they are able to hold onto that power. They know damn well that if they sold a bomb to someone else, and that bomb then got used, the western world has the technology to analyze the trace materials left over from the bomb and to identify those materials' origin, meaning that either the US or Israel would nuke Iran back in retaliation, or Iran would be invaded and the government toppled. Either way, it would result in the the Iranian leadership losing the power that they have spent decades solidifying.

Quark_Quasar: I'm not arguing, obviously those nuts don't need more weapons, but americans have a tendency to ignore past transgressions where we were at fault.

You can argue that nuking Japan wasn't justified. I don't think that's the case: I think all the available evidence suggests, on balance, that the deployment of the 2 weapons was the correct decision. But that's a separate debate from the present question, because we were at war with Japan and had been for a while, and tu quoque - especially tu quoque 60 years ago - simply isn't a valid argument. The US and other NATO member countries are qualitatively different from Iran. No serious person disputes this.

mrexcess: You're answering a different question than was asked. I asked you how Iran acquiring nuclear weapons was a real risk to the US and Europe. Bargaining-chip, shmargaining-chip. Answer the question.

I did. You seized on one premise. The other, quite clearly stated, was that Iran's government or the militant groups it backs throughout the Middle East could use enriched material against the US or Europe.

SeamusFerrell: Pseudacris: SeamusFerrell: Tsar_Bomba1: I'm less worried about Iran making a bomb than them selling one to anyone who has the cash. That's where the real threat is.

I can't believe Israel hasn't gone in and bombed their facility like they previously did.

I thought Israel bombed a site in Iraq, not Iran. Maybe they did it to both countries.

Alright everyone. Israel bombed Syria. Not Iran, not Iraq - Syria.

/Carry on.

Ahem. (new window)

Can't argue with that.

I figured Tsar Bomba1 was referring to something a little more recent...

Israel admits air strike on Syria in 2007 (new window)

The Face Of Oblivion
I did.

Actually, no, your response was completely non-sequitur to the question that was asked. Iran having a bargaining chip does not equate to a, quoting your own claim here, "real risk to the US and Europe".

The other, quite clearly stated, was that Iran's government or the militant groups it backs throughout the Middle East could use enriched material against the US or Europe.

Is this any more true of Iran than any other nation? Is this not equally a reason to go to war with Pakistan? India and China and Russia too, for that matter?

itazurakko: Hobodeluxe: hell they would be stupid to not work out contingency plans.

This, yeah.

It's not like other countries haven't been madly saber-rattling at them for a while now.

I guess that a sovereign nation with no UN sanctions against maintaining a military air force is not allowed to train to protect its assets unless we like them? Iran should just sit around waiting for Israel or the US to ruin its day because it knows deep down inside it's the evil villain in our little morality play?

And Face of Oblivion, just WHY would Iran want to nuke the US, or give weapons to a completely uncontrollable terrorist organization that would? Do you think they hate our freedoms THAT MUCH that they'd spend billions of dollars developing a nuclear weapon just to give it to some reckless hobos living in a cave, or destroy a US city and... prove how much they hate us with absolutely no material gain and massive loss of international support?

If you think of your "enemy" as a cackling supervillain it's easy to be afraid of them. The fact of the matter is, Iran would have a moderate government if we'd supported them before the hardliners took over, and the people of Iran still are largely moderate. If you think Iran is a bloodthirsty evil terrorist nation then you've either fallen for the BS from their leaders or from ours. And if you think it's an appropriate response to kill thousands of Iranian civilians because Iran is scary, then you're a monster.