Well, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has reiterated his statements that the USA is the 'great Satan', the Holocaust is a myth, and that if the West and the UN continues to require him and Iran to make guarantees they're not making nuclear weapons, there's a good chance they will make nuclear weapons. He's also threatening to revise Iran's acceptance of NPT.
Among other lies and bullcrap was his statement that it's acceptable to Western governments to 'insult the Prophet', but not to question the legitimacy of Israel-he didn't say Israel but rather used a bunch of words that added up to Israel.
But the most amusing part was when he said that the West wanted to hold nuclear energy hostage, doling it out drop by drop for massive political prices. Like Arabic oil-producing states aren't still alive for that very reason.
Oh, and he's premiering rejection for the Russian proposal because it contains 'no guarantees' of Russian cooperation.
Yeah...President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is definitely a reasonable man whom we should permit access to nuclear power.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I would be curious what people propose be done with Iran to get them to comply if invasion is not an option. Two licks on my lollipop if the word 'embargo' isn't used, either.
Of course, I know there are people out there who think a nuclear armed Iran is a good idea. Love to hear from you, too.
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
So he's saying, more or less, "Let us have nuclear weapons, or...we're going to get nuclear weapons!" Just when you think the insanity of some people couldn't possibly get any greater...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's not actually what he's saying, Eldrad. What he's actually saying is, "Listen, Great Satan and Little Satans, you'd better let us have unsupervised nuclear power or else we'll get nuclear weapons!"
And then, within Iran he's saying, "Now, onto Item #2, 'Wiping Israel Off the Map' and 2a, 'Holocaust Editorial Cartoon Contest'"
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Isn't that kind of the same thing - let us have the ability to make nuclear weapons, or we'll make them anyway? And considering nuclear weapons are the only thing that would let them "win" a war against Israel...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
At the best it's brinksmanship with the aim of covering all of his bases. At worst-and very likely considering his many statements about Great Satan, destroying Israel, etc. etc.-it's exactly that, smitty.
-------
If Iran and its firebrand president had even an ounce of credibility on this particular issue, things would be different. But they don't.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
The mind wonders at what the retaliation would be for the use of a nuke in today's world. I can't imagine the US retaliating with one, as careful as we've been with collateral damage.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It would depend on where the strike came from and where it hit, and how much we knew about who launched it.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I agree - I think Isreal, since they are pretty much in a constant fight for existence, would be heavier-handed than the US.
But, assuming the source was known. How far do you go to try and avoid collateral damage? If a country uses a nuke against us, does that justify using a nuke against them?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I believe that Isreal would nuke any country that WMD'd them. I believe that Mutually Assured Destruction should be the catch phrase for Isreal to sing back to Iran and their nuclear games.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Retaliatory strikes, whether nuclear or otherwise, are not justified.
Strategic strikes, where the goal in mind is to disable the enemy's ability to strike again, are allowable.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, I wasn't assuming this was going to be a tit-for-tat type of engagement. If someone lobs a WMD, the world (well, not the French) would come down on that country. The question is, would it be a "regime change" or annihilation?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Scott,
It would have to be a pretty specific sort of retaliatory strike that wouldn't have some impact on the enemy's ability to strike again, wouldn't it?
But for the record, I wasn't trying to say that a retaliatory strike on, say, Tehran, would be justified-just that I can see it happening if a nuclear attack on an American city is launched by Iran, or even aided by Iran, and the evidence was credible. I don't think it would even have to be damning evidence, either.
I think that would be true of pretty much any nation, really.