If Iran feels they need nukes, who could blame them?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by neophyte

Just a wild guess, but, I'm thinking that you aren't Iranian, and probably don't give two shits about them, or their rights as a sovereign nation. It is unreasonable to expect them to feel this way about themselves and their nation of origin. Contrary to what most Americans seem to believe, we haven't the right, let alone some contrived moral imperative to dictate terms to other countries, even though we've done it since the end of WW2.

Yes on the first two queries, no on the third.

As to the rest, I agree in theory but not in practice.

I don't see how a nuclear armed Iran will be beneficial to anyone. Take a good look at the Mullahs running things over there, they make our theocratic "cheeses" look as though they possess the wisdom of Saul by comparison.

Ain't right or wrong. Ain't good or bad. It's like the Kraut called it..."realpolitik".

If the USA can use it's influence to prevent the Mullahs from possessing nukes, or better yet, let the Iranians proper rule their county...what's wrong with that?

Other than getting in a shooting war during the process.

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Charles

I don't see how a nuclear armed Iran will be beneficial to anyone....

... other than the Iranians themselves (in their view). Exactly what is it that keeps us pussyfooting around Pakistan other than their nukes?

Do I like it that they have them (or are trying to develop them)? No. Do I blame them for doing so? No.

[BlueStreak]

I thought my neighborhood is rough. If I were you, I'd move.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

LMAO!

That's a good analogy Rob.

Pete

[neophyte]

If the USA can use it's influence to prevent the Mullahs from possessing nukes, or better yet, let the Iranians proper rule their county...what's wrong with that?

so, in the spirit of the whole good for the goose, good for the gander thing, I take it you'd have no problem with Iranian nationals/zealots coming over here and doing same? Dictating terms to us regarding our national defense and military postures?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by neophyte

so, in the spirit of the whole good for the goose, good for the gander thing, I take it you'd have no problem with Iranian nationals/zealots coming over here and doing same? Dictating terms to us regarding our national defense and military postures?

Ah, but this is where the dominant dog factor comes onto play. They are not over here, dictating to us----Because we are the dominant dog.

Now, on many occasions, I have expressed a desire to have my country stop trying to run the world, myself. Personally, I'd love to see us protect no one but ourselves and nothing but our own shores. And, the closer we can get to this goal, the happier I'd be.

But, that's a hard goal to acheive when sworn enemies are building bombs with your name on them.

Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Ah, but this is where the dominant dog factor comes onto play. They are not over here, dictating to us----Because we are the dominant dog.

Now, on many occasions, I have expressed a desire to have my country stop trying to run the world, myself. Personally, I'd love to see us protect no one but ourselves and nothing but our own shores. And, the closer we can get to this goal, the happier I'd be.

But, that's a hard goal to acheive when sworn enemies are building bombs with your name on them.

Dave

It all makes New Zealand seem more and more desirable.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by neophyte

so, in the spirit of the whole good for the goose, good for the gander thing, I take it you'd have no problem with Iranian nationals/zealots coming over here and doing same? Dictating terms to us regarding our national defense and military postures?

I suppose that would only be fair, wouldn't it? After all, we've had a hand in meddling in their affairs every since they aligned themselves with the Nazis during WWII.

Whether the current situation is our fault or not is water under the bridge. What do you propose we do now?

Simply step back and allow them nuclear weapons?

Myself, I doubt that there is much we can do to prevent it long term...other than slow the process down in hopes that the Mullahs will be disposed of beforehand.

Chas

[neophyte]

Originally Posted by Charles

I suppose that would only be fair, wouldn't it? After all, we've had a hand in meddling in their affairs every since they aligned themselves with the Nazis during WWII.

Whether the current situation is our fault or not is water under the bridge. What do you propose we do now?

Simply step back and allow them nuclear weapons?

Myself, I doubt that there is much we can do to prevent it long term...other than slow the process down in hopes that the Mullahs will be disposed of beforehand.

Chas

within this thought lies the essence of the fallacy of America's view of the rest of the world. We're American, we're christian, ergo, we will decide what is best for you and your country, impose our will upon you, and bludgeon you until you see the light of wisdom that shines so brightly on us.

Allow? Really?

America does not, by any tenet, measure, or interpretation of international law have the authority to allow, disallow, or otherwise steer and influence a damned thing Iran or any other nation decides is in their best interests. We presume to occupy some mythical moral high ground because we embrace the rule of law, then discard it whenever it doesn't suit our ends or purposes.

Giving full measure to the validity of our cause and purpose in WW2, here's the key to it all. There was a time and place in history for America to assume the role of the benevolent dictator, but it ended over a half century ago.

Until we, as a nation and people, grasp the concept of staying the fuck out of other peoples ways of life,business, and governments, we will be despised for just what we are, and suffer from the resulting hostility.

Peace is a virtual impossibility in this world with a jackbooted bully mashing the throats of those that won't comply with it's wishes, and we are wearing those boots.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by neophyte

within this thought lies the essence of the fallacy of America's view of the rest of the world. We're American, we're christian, ergo, we will decide what is best for you and your country, impose our will upon you, and bludgeon you until you see the light of wisdom that shines so brightly on us.

Allow? Really?

America does not, by any tenet, measure, or interpretation of international law have the authority to allow, disallow, or otherwise steer and influence a damned thing Iran or any other nation decides is in their best interests. We presume to occupy some mythical moral high ground because we embrace the rule of law, then discard it whenever it doesn't suit our ends or purposes.

Giving full measure to the validity of our cause and purpose in WW2, here's the key to it all. There was a time and place in history for America to assume the role of the benevolent dictator, but it ended over a half century ago.

Until we, as a nation and people, grasp the concept of staying the fuck out of other peoples ways of life,business, and governments, we will be despised for just what we are, and suffer from the resulting hostility.

Peace is a virtual impossibility in this world with a jackbooted bully mashing the throats of those that won't comply with it's wishes, and we are wearing those boots.

Apparently we're not the only jackbooted bully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

It's geopolitics, with Iran being one of the pawns. And I doubt that those who make policy have any illusions about moral supremacy.

And as much as I dislike bulling other people around, at times it's a necessity.

Probably a moot point anyway. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and at best all we are going to accomplish is to delay the inevitable.

You see, that's what people do, we kill one another. It's our nature.

Chas