Israel and Iran - Will we see air strikes soon?

Suspicious activity is not the same as evidence of weapons development.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2012/01/iran-nuclear-iaea-question
"From the New Yorker in November:"

(My emphasis.)

Because we are not under the control of an extremist theocratic regieme, and we have a balence of power here that would make it very difficult for us to nuke anyone without great cause. I'm not saying Iran is going to nuke everyone willy-nilly, but I don't think they are someone who should be trusted with them.

1) yes "unfairness" is appropriate because we are discussing weopons with the potential power to whipe out our species. and since when have nations been required to be fair to eachother?
2) Well the thing about extremist theocratic regimes, is that that their fanatical beliefs sometimes overpower common sense(plus they stated numerious times that they want israel gone), so maybe giving them a nuke mught not good idea.
3) Because they fucking despise the jewish people and want them gone. Once again why should we let them have nukes? The more people who have their finger on a launch button the more likely it is that someone willl push it.

Iran (Persia) is a very prestigious country they would not nuke anyone to see everything that is Persian wiped off the face of the world.

What people don't realize that Iran is Persia. One of the oldest countries in the world...

1) There is no law of nature that requires nations to be fair, true. But it isn't a bad idea for prudent diplomacy. Whoever you are being unfair to will likely have their relations with you drop.

2) Yeah, I'm not buying that. The only time it would be rational to nuke another country, in the current world were a lot of different powers possess them, are if they were in danger of being eradicated. The people, the regime, whatever. Not for religious reasons alone. Threats don't equate to a promise of action.

3) They don't dislike the Jewish people without just cause. Why should we let them have nukes? Well ideally, and this has been said before, it would be better if no one had nukes. The imperial hubris of saying we can tell them not to have nukes is a little sickening, and I don't see why we think we possess this power.

Also to anyone else who is responding to what I said I'm sorry I probably won't get to you. I can't debate three people.

I never said we did deserve nukes. In an ideal world, nobody has nukes. But this is not an ideal world and people have nukes. Soooooooooooooooooo why should we allow more nations to have nukes? Why should we not just try to limit nations that have nukes to just nations that already have nukes?

Because stopping them will just cause more problems.

On one hand:

"All it takes for evil to prevail if for good men to do nothing."

On the other:

A level playing feild prevents the guy at the top from rolling down the hill and killing everyone else.

So stopping a nation from getting nuclear weapons is gonna cause more problems than if this nation has nuclear weapons? Hey why dont we go ahead and give everyone a nuclear weapon. It's only fair right? Then we wont have people complaining that someone else has a nuclear weapon and they dont. I mean its not like anything bad can come from that.

So it's good vs evil now? Evil Muslims vs good Christians? That is not what you are saying, but come on. That's a little silly.

Yeah, it is going to cause more problems. What do you think is going to have to happen for us to stop them from having a nuke? If we were talking about a small cult of fanatics getting a nuke I could see your point. Not a nation of 78 million.

It's more like evil Muslims vs everybody else.

No. It isn't.
But is killing anyone ever good?

Let me ask you something: If you had the worst tyrant in the whole of the universe at your mercy, would you kill him for the battles he has fought, the untold numbers that he has killed, the worlds he has burned?

/disliked/

I guess I would. I'm a little confused though, why are you asking me if killing anyone is ever good?

Tangent. Sorry about that. Think it was leftover from listening to this while posting.

My original point with the quote was that things that the West would not like will happen either way. Ignoring it does nothing.

It's no problem. That song is actually pretty good.

I unno, I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't think it our duty to concern ourselves with countries so far away.

Distance is not a problem for nuclear weapons.

I responded to you, if you didn't see because I made an edit. (Sorry)

We dont need to go militarily. There are other ways to curb nuclear expansion than militaristic ones.

1) I don't really care if Iran thinks we are being bossy.

2) That's cool in all, but their actions have shown that they don't like israel, in fact they downright despise israel, and that just makes it all the more likey that they will launch.Your right they may not launch but why the hell do you want to take that chance. A threat is a threat, it should always be taken seriously and not just assumed to be fake.

3) What just cause, that israel exists? "Imperial Hubris"? Let's see, we don't want a theocractic backwards nation to get nuclear weapons, and we DO possess the power to stop them. So basically you think we should just let them have nukes because otherwise we are being mean?

1) That's a bit arrogant, but whatever you want to do.

2) You act like it's a reasonable chance that they will launch nukes based on religion alone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the main reason you think they would nuke Israel is it not?

3) Probably. I'm not going to imply I know exactly why, but I have a hunch that it is not dishonest. "Theocratic backwards nation"? Really? That is taking it a bit far. And so what if we possess the power to do it, that doesn't mean there couldn't be severe consequences.

Yes, that is what I am saying. Obviously I think that we shouldn't be mean to Iran, because it is not nice. I never gave another reason for why. Spot on.