Time to attack iran

[Shogun]

Why don't you answer my question?

#1-this is an iran thread
#2-i asked first
#3-if you have a question posed to me only use the PM
#4-see #1

PUSSY!

 

[Gurdari]

Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP. Rather than respond emotionally, as have so many here have done recently, I would like to see posters come up with point-by-point responses why Bolton's assessment is inaccurate.

washingtonpost.com

By John R. Bolton
Thursday, July 2, 2009
With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.

Not really, they can just obey international law unlike us. Or be an aggressive nuclear armed power and attack another country (which John seems to imply Iran would do - which is bad - which is what he says Israel should do...)

Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.

WHile it is true that most people feel the same way about the threat or non-threat Iran poses as they did before the election, there doesn't seem to be a real point here.

Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.

No other option? He really makes no case that this is the only option - though he has a record of not opposing violent intervention (when it is the good guys doing it anyway).

He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.


Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.

Dubious... fine word, that. Many claims and arguments are dubious. What is really being said here? That some think Iran wants to be more accepted - and others think it does not? Okay. I agree that there are two schools of thought about that. Maybe even more than two.

Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.

Negotiating in good faith is rare - and it is a pity John chose not to fill in the full story regarding Europe and Iran, and any possible agreements that may have been made regarding security in exchange for non-nuclear activities. Though, I do appreciate his ability to predict the future. I agree that Iran has worked on developing weapons over the last 20 years. ANd I would even submit they did so before that. Like every other nation just about. Though why they would feel the need to ratchet up military development while surrounded by hostile forces is beyond me.

Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.

Well, many nations have nuclear power - though Iran has every right to do so, and since it is being threatened by Nuclear armed nations (Israel and the USA) it really should take steps to protect itself, as 'Only those most theologically committed' to the goodwill of foreign armies would trust they would be safe otherwise.

In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.

How so? Regime change is not a right of ours, no matter how easily we can kill people and overthrow another government. It is still blatant and illegal aggression. Diplomacy only runs out of time if we make it run out of time - which we did with Iraq, and now some people made a lot of money. I wonder if diplomacy will run out of time again? Not because it isn't fruitful - it just doesn't pay the bills as well as conflict.

Israel is trapped...? Trapped in a cycle of threatening (hypocritcally) the state of Iran for doing what Israel already did.

"In short..." haha

Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.

Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.

A very weak argument overall, it really depends strongly on an ideologically pre-disposed audience - shame on John Bolton for fomenting war yet again. I wonder if the Iraqis felt like their regime was the only thing targeted?

 

[rhodescholar]

A very weak argument overall, it really depends strongly on an ideologically pre-disposed audience - shame on John Bolton for fomenting war yet again. I wonder if the Iraqis felt like their regime was the only thing targeted?

I'm not going to waste much time on you, another person with meager at best knowledge or facts. Simply put, you have the cart before the horse.

Iran has been threatening israel - who is not even her fucking neighbor - for 30 years - and has engaged her in a proxy war using terrorist groups for much of that time.

Until you or anyone else is able to step up and discuss how iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and uses hamas and hezbollah to attack 4 other nations, there is nothing really further worth conversing about. When I see israel fomenting wars in FOUR other nations, THEN you might have an argument.

And a person without a bias or an agenda, after seeing how the IRI fascists have murdered their own people over the last 8 weeks since their fraudalent election, would recognize that a dictatorship that does that to its own people would - and has done - far worse to people of other nations.

Lastly, iran has been refusing IAEA inspections for years, and is widely considered to have forfeited its right to enrich uranium, even though it formerly could under the NPT.

 

[HUGGY]

A very weak argument overall, it really depends strongly on an ideologically pre-disposed audience - shame on John Bolton for fomenting war yet again. I wonder if the Iraqis felt like their regime was the only thing targeted?

I'm not going to waste much time on you, another person with meager at best knowledge or facts. Simply put, you have the cart before the horse.

Iran has been threatening israel - who is not even her fucking neighbor - for 30 years - and has engaged her in a proxy war using terrorist groups for much of that time.

Until you or anyone else is able to step up and discuss how iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and uses hamas and hezbollah to attack 4 other nations, there is nothing really further worth conversing about. When I see israel fomenting wars in FOUR other nations, THEN you might have an argument.

And a person without a bias or an agenda, after seeing how the IRI fascists have murdered their own people over the last 8 weeks since their fraudalent election, would recognize that a dictatorship that does that to its own people would - and has done - far worse to people of other nations.

Lastly, iran has been refusing IAEA inspections for years, and is widely considered to have forfeited its right to enrich uranium, even though it formerly could under the NPT.

Let Israel deal with the consequences of its own sorry foreign policy. If they want to attack Iran and suffer with what happens next..fine. I have no more sympathy for one or the other. How's that for a "pacifist"? We have no business being there. We are not protecting any US interests there. The multinationals can afford to pay thier own freight.

 

[rhodescholar]

Let Israel deal with the consequences of its own sorry foreign policy. If they want to attack Iran and suffer with what happens next..fine. I have no more sympathy for one or the other. How's that for a "pacifist"? We have no business being there. We are not protecting any US interests there. The multinationals can afford to pay thier own freight.

It is so true the statement, how those who do not know their history are bound to repeat it over and over.

I distinctly remember my high school history class discussing how many isolationist americans were adament about entering WW2, where they claimed "oh, that's Europe's problem, let them sort it out." Not the best idea, especially after Germany began turning the clock back past the worst of the Dark Ages...had the French, British and others acted before Germany had become a major power, WW2 could have possibly been avoided.

And that was 65 years ago, when the world was FAR less dependant on international trade.

You cede the gulf and surrounding regions - with iran taking control of the passageways for 75% of the world's oil - and they start the inevitable blackmail fee for access, you will see massive price shocks like you cannot imagine. How will countries like china and japan function, as this is where they get most of their oil?

Sorry friend, but the Ron Paul Isolationist non-sense didn't work in WW2, and probably hasn't been applicable for about 500 years.

But for those who don't know their history, why not try what has failed so badly in the past?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Let Israel deal with the consequences of its own sorry foreign policy. If they want to attack Iran and suffer with what happens next..fine. I have no more sympathy for one or the other. How's that for a "pacifist"? We have no business being there. We are not protecting any US interests there. The multinationals can afford to pay thier own freight.

It is so true the statement, how those who do not know their history are bound to repeat it over and over.

I distinctly remember my high school history class discussing how many isolationist americans were adament about entering WW2, where they claimed "oh, that's Europe's problem, let them sort it out." Not the best idea, especially after Germany began turning the clock back past the worst of the Dark Ages...had the French, British and others acted before Germany had become a major power, WW2 could have possibly been avoided.

And that was 65 years ago, when the world was FAR less dependant on international trade.

You cede the gulf and surrounding regions - with iran taking control of the passageways for 75% of the world's oil - and they start the inevitable blackmail fee for access, you will see massive price shocks like you cannot imagine. How will countries like china and japan function, as this is where they get most of their oil?

Sorry friend, but the Ron Paul Isolationist non-sense didn't work in WW2, and probably hasn't been applicable for about 500 years.

But for those who don't know their history, why not try what has failed so badly in the past?

So-called "isolationism" didn't lead to WW2. Had we not intervened in WW1 it's unlikely that the Allies would have been able to impose the oppressive Treaty of Versailles on Germany, and Hitler likely wouldn't have risen to power. It was our interventionist foreign policy that led to WW2.

 

[rhodescholar]

So-called "isolationism" didn't lead to WW2. Had we not intervened in WW1 it's unlikely that the Allies would have been able to impose the oppressive Treaty of Versailles on Germany, and Hitler likely wouldn't have risen to power. It was our interventionist foreign policy that led to WW2.

Yet another subject you clearly know nothing about. Go look up how Wilson fought ferociously to mitigate and soften the parameters of the Versailles treaty.

Facts, regarding any subject, are of little use to you...

And when are you going to answer the question?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So-called "isolationism" didn't lead to WW2. Had we not intervened in WW1 it's unlikely that the Allies would have been able to impose the oppressive Treaty of Versailles on Germany, and Hitler likely wouldn't have risen to power. It was our interventionist foreign policy that led to WW2.

Yet another subject you clearly know nothing about. Go look up how Wilson fought ferociously to mitigate and soften the parameters of the Versailles treaty.

Facts, regarding any subject, are of little use to you...

And when are you going to answer the question?

Regardless of what Wilson tried to do in regards to the Treaty of Versailles his putting us in WW1 set the stage for the Treaty of Versailles. Had we maintained our neutrality they couldn't have forced the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.

 

[rhodescholar]

Regardless of what Wilson tried to do in regards to the Treaty of Versailles his putting us in WW1 set the stage for the Treaty of Versailles. Had we maintained our neutrality they couldn't have forced the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.

Bottom line - isolationism does not work, and the US and West cannot allow iran to control the middle east.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?

 

[Sunni Man]

Regardless of what Wilson tried to do in regards to the Treaty of Versailles his putting us in WW1 set the stage for the Treaty of Versailles. Had we maintained our neutrality they couldn't have forced the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.

and the US and West cannot allow iran to control the middle east.

Why not?

It is in Iran's back yard and not the West

We need to leave Iran alone

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Regardless of what Wilson tried to do in regards to the Treaty of Versailles his putting us in WW1 set the stage for the Treaty of Versailles. Had we maintained our neutrality they couldn't have forced the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.

Bottom line - isolationism does not work, and the US and West cannot allow iran to control the middle east.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?

The bottom line is that interventionism doesn't work and we need to mind our own business.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

The focus should be on the growing threat of Red China and their puppet state North Korea. Both who actually Possess Nukes, and can hit The United States of America. Let Israel deal with Iran. ~BH

 

[rhodescholar]

The focus should be on the growing threat of Red China and their puppet state North Korea. Both who actually Possess Nukes, and can hit The United States of America. Let Israel deal with Iran. ~BH

I have no problem allowing israel to crush iran - the problem has been the US and Europe have been preventing israel from taking action for what, oh about 6 years now?

 

[Gurdari]

I'm not going to waste much time on you, another person with meager at best knowledge or facts. Simply put, you have the cart before the horse.

Iran has been threatening israel - who is not even her fucking neighbor - for 30 years - and has engaged her in a proxy war using terrorist groups for much of that time.

Please support your assertion regarding horse/cart and my knowledge of facts.
Please support Iran's threats (list any if you know of them) as a justification for launching attacks against Iran. If making threats of attacks is worth retaliatory airstrikes, you must believe Iran has a right to attack Israel for threatening it.

Until you or anyone else is able to step up and discuss how iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and uses hamas and hezbollah to attack 4 other nations, there is nothing really further worth conversing about. When I see israel fomenting wars in FOUR other nations, THEN you might have an argument.

That makes no sense. What does my 'stepping up' to discuss Hamas and Hezbolla have to do with Iran's Nuclear ambitions and John Bolton's article? Regardless, Iran (I believe) assists both of those organizations, and likely sees each as legitamate resistance, political movements. Movements I might add who have support among oppressed people that they have helped. You can say each is a terrorist organization, but you would have to apply your definition of terrorism evenly - TO ALL ACTORS WHO FIT THAT BILL. Until you are willing to do that, your argument has little power.

And a person without a bias or an agenda, after seeing how the IRI fascists have murdered their own people over the last 8 weeks since their fraudalent election, would recognize that a dictatorship that does that to its own people would - and has done - far worse to people of other nations.

Are you saying that Iran has done worse to other nations than it recently did to its own people? Can you explain? I think the ruling gov there is a bunch of idiots who should be removed from power... but only by the citizens of Iran, when they make it so. However, that also has nothing to do with attacking them because of the nuclear ambitions - unless you wish to make that case logically? John certainly did not.

Lastly, iran has been refusing IAEA inspections for years, and is widely considered to have forfeited its right to enrich uranium, even though it formerly could under the NPT.

You cannot "forfeited a right to enrich uranium" since that right is not given to a nation. There is no world police cracking down on NPT violators, clearly - since one of the BIGGEST violators (and one who never bothered with stupid things like that) are the ones threatening Iran at the moment.

 

[rhodescholar]

Please support your assertion regarding horse/cart and my knowledge of facts.Please support Iran's threats (list any if you know of them) as a justification for launching attacks against Iran. If making threats of attacks is worth retaliatory airstrikes, you must believe Iran has a right to attack Israel for threatening it.

Blair rebukes Iran for threats against Israel | World news | The Guardian
RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAL

And here is a long, long list of them:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That makes no sense. What does my 'stepping up' to discuss Hamas and Hezbolla have to do with Iran's Nuclear ambitions and John Bolton's article?

How much do you need the basics spoon fed to you? Hamas, Hez and the shia militias are extensions of the iranian military...

Regardless, Iran (I believe) assists both of those organizations, and likely sees each as legitamate resistance, political movements.

Would you accept the CIA deposing mossadegh as "legitimate resistance"? How about its actions in south america and against cuba? Or do you only see meddling from one side as illegal?

Movements I might add who have support among oppressed people that they have helped.

And you think the people of gaza are happy with hamas right now?

You can say each is a terrorist organization, but you would have to apply your definition of terrorism evenly - TO ALL ACTORS WHO FIT THAT BILL. Until you are willing to do that, your argument has little power.

And why is that?

Are you saying that Iran has done worse to other nations than it recently did to its own people? Can you explain? I think the ruling gov there is a bunch of idiots who should be removed from power... but only by the citizens of Iran, when they make it so. However, that also has nothing to do with attacking them because of the nuclear ambitions - unless you wish to make that case logically? John certainly did not.

Yes, as most nations don't murder hundreds of their own citizens for public, peaceful demonstrations. Gov'ts that act like that, are not to be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Further, iran's own constitution, which I doubt you've ever read, allows for freedom of speech and free public demonstrations. Iran is also a signatory to various human rights conventions, which it broke when it attacked their citizenry...

And something tells me that with your agenda, there is no line of reasoning you'd accept. Were iran to nuke israel, and have a party about it, you'd find an excuse for them then, as well.

You cannot "forfeited a right to enrich uranium" since that right is not given to a nation.

Uhhhh, yes it is, go read the NPT...

Publications: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

There is no world police cracking down on NPT violators, clearly - since one of the BIGGEST violators (and one who never bothered with stupid things like that) are the ones threatening Iran at the moment.

Dude, you really have no fucking clue. Perfect example of someone who needs to listen, and learn, and post alot less.

The UNSC is tasked with EXACTLY that responsibility, and assigns the right for maintaining the status quo through interventionist inspections via the IAEA.

Further, if you are referring to israel, since it never signed the NPT, it is NOT obligated to allow any inspections of any kind. ONLY signatories of the NPT can be legally compelled to do so.

 

[L.K.Eder]

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAL

i will just pick this one.

your source is the iran press service. exile persians in paris editorializing the al qods day speech from 2001.

great headline:

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL



no wonder freerepublic and daniel pipes show up when searching for this nifty headline.

another "quote" from iran press service:

"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world"




now what reports MEMRI?

MEMRI: Special Dispatch - No. 325

headline:

Former Iranian President Rafsanjani on Using a Nuclear Bomb Against Israel

not so catchy, huh?

the above quote is not to be found. and nothing about "should use nuclear bomb blah blah"

but, MEMRI only used excerpts, so who can provide the whole speech translated to english?

globalsecurity.org can

Rafsanjani warns of high cost of US support for Israel


the second quote can not be found. sorry.

and here is the passage about nuclear weapons:

US-British support for Israel

It is also supported politically in the United Nations and many other places. They also contain Islamic and Arab governments. Israel needs all of those things and the Americans and Britain are meeting its needs. Therefore, we should consider it to be an outgrowth of colonialism and a multi-purpose colonial base. That is where we should start discussing the next point. So the survival of Israel depends on the interests of imperialists and colonialists. So they go together.
The colonialists will keep this base as long as they need it. Now, whether they can do so or not is a separate issue and this is my next point. Any time they find a replacement for that particular instrument, they will take it up and this will come to an end. This will open a new chapter. Because colonialism and imperialism will not easily leave the people of the world alone. Therefore, you can see that they have arranged it in a way that the balance of power favours Israel. Well, from a numerical point of view, it cannot have as many troops as Muslims and Arabs do. So they have improved the quality of what they have. Classical weaponry has its own limitations. They have limited use. They have a limited range as well. They have supplied vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction and unconventional weapons to Israel. They have permitted it to have them and they have shut their eyes to what is going on. They have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles and suchlike.

If one day ... Of course, that is very important. If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.

Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now.

the bolded part DOES NOT say Iran SHOULD use a nuclear bomb.

d e t e r r e n c e.

an overall failure of rhodescholar using this "source". he probably read it on freerepublic.

 

[rhodescholar]

i will just pick this one.your source is the iran press service. exile persians in paris editorializing the al qods day speech from 2001.

So let's say he never said, who gives a shit. Not surprised you ignored the far, far longer list at Wiki, with dozens and dozens of Ahdmadinejad quotes. At this point, only those with an agenda or are fucking insane think that iran has not been both threatening AND terrorizing israel for a long time.

Were the tables reversed, and israel was openly using terrorist proxies against and inside iran, you'd no doubt be the first to complain about it.

For everyone else, here's a great article on a potential attack, and a good explanation:

Chuck Wald: Of Course There’s a Military Option on Iran - WSJ.com

There Is a Military Option on Iran
U.S. Air Force and Naval forces could do serious damage to Tehran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy fails.

By CHUCK WALD
In a policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of Iran, “We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage.” But the Iranian government has yet to accept President Obama’s outstretched hand. Even if Tehran suddenly acceded to talks, U.S. policy makers must prepare for the eventuality that diplomacy fails. While there has been much discussion of economic sanctions, we cannot neglect the military’s role in a Plan B.

 

[Gurdari]

Blair rebukes Iran for threats against Israel | World news | The Guardian
RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAL

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world".

Not exactly as you described... he is saying they would have a stalemate because the result of such a attack by each party would damage one less than the other.

And here is a long, long list of them:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That makes no sense. What does my 'stepping up' to discuss Hamas and Hezbolla have to do with Iran's Nuclear ambitions and John Bolton's article?

How much do you need the basics spoon fed to you? Hamas, Hez and the shia militias are extensions of the iranian military...

Would you accept the CIA deposing mossadegh as "legitimate resistance"? How about its actions in south america and against cuba? Or do you only see meddling from one side as illegal?

Hahaha - so is the US a legit target for attack because of these activities? You must feel that they are, since Iran is.

And you think the people of gaza are happy with hamas right now?

And why is that?

Whether or not they are 'happy' right now doesn't change the history of what Hamas has done there, has it? Like it or not - the people there have benefited from some of Hamas' works, which allowed them to be a legit political force enough to win an election. Again, this is off topic regardless.

Yes, as most nations don't murder hundreds of their own citizens for public, peaceful demonstrations. Gov'ts that act like that, are not to be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Further, iran's own constitution, which I doubt you've ever read, allows for freedom of speech and free public demonstrations. Iran is also a signatory to various human rights conventions, which it broke when it attacked their citizenry...

Not sure what this has to do with anything - Iran is run by dicks - agreed. Not a reason to attack them. And who is to be trusted with Nuke's - International law violators??? Like the nations that have nukes (ALL of them)?

And something tells me that with your agenda, there is no line of reasoning you'd accept. Were iran to nuke israel, and have a party about it, you'd find an excuse for them then, as well.

That's in need of some support... otherwise you're just talking out of your ass. 'agenda' you mean 'cause I disagree with you and Johnny B.? Let's go for truth, facts and logic and universality.
If the US fit the same criteria as Iran - would the US deserve the same treatment? And an attack?

There should only be one anser - YES. Unless you're not applying your logic evenly...

You cannot "forfeited a right to enrich uranium" since that right is not given to a nation.

Uhhhh, yes it is, go read the NPT...

Publications: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

There is no world police cracking down on NPT violators, clearly - since one of the BIGGEST violators (and one who never bothered with stupid things like that) are the ones threatening Iran at the moment.

Dude, you really have no fucking clue. Perfect example of someone who needs to listen, and learn, and post alot less.

The UNSC is tasked with EXACTLY that responsibility, and assigns the right for maintaining the status quo through interventionist inspections via the IAEA.

Further, if you are referring to israel, since it never signed the NPT, it is NOT obligated to allow any inspections of any kind. ONLY signatories of the NPT can be legally compelled to do so.

Hahaha - so they just have to 'pull out' of the NPT? Or why not violate at will like the US of A?

 

[Gurdari]

messed up my quoting - oops... hope it is still legible.

 

[rhodescholar]

Not exactly as you described... he is saying they would have a stalemate because the result of such a attack by each party would damage one less than the other.

Funny how we do not hear israel threatening other nations 1,000 miles away...

Hahaha - so is the US a legit target for attack because of these activities? You must feel that they are, since Iran is.

Absolutely, it is an act of war, and Nicaragua is welcome to try, just as israel, after suffering decades of bombings and missile strikes from iran's poodles, is welcome to destroy iran.

Whether or not they are 'happy' right now doesn't change the history of what Hamas has done there, has it? Like it or not - the people there have benefited from some of Hamas' works, which allowed them to be a legit political force enough to win an election.

Is this a joke? Please list for us the "good things" hamas has "done" for the people of Gaza?

Not sure what this has to do with anything - Iran is run by dicks - agreed. Not a reason to attack them.

If they were "dicks" that did not want to control the middle east, i might agree - but they have hegemonic aspirations, and are applying them as i write this in four other countries.

If the US fit the same criteria as Iran - would the US deserve the same treatment? And an attack? There should only be one anser - YES. Unless you're not applying your logic evenly...

As I said above, if the US illegally meddles in another nation's affairs, it is welcome to attack it.

ahaha - so they just have to 'pull out' of the NPT? Or why not violate at will like the US of A?

#1 that is what N Korea did
#2- how is the US "violating" the NPT?