Mossad terrorists keep killing civilians.

[giblets]

Something more than "Iran hasn't developed nuclear weapons so far".

[C0ckney]

A whole lot of people disagree with you on this point. I don't see much justification for your side of the issue.

i'd like to hear your justification for why iran getting nuclear weapons is such a big problem that it requires murder/terrorism (call it what want) to 'prevent' it from happening.

[Zevico]

The Israelis bombed Osirak in the 80's, for which everyone seems quite grateful. I wonder if that's what will happen here.

[Zevico]

i'd like to hear your justification for why iran getting nuclear weapons is such a big problem that it requires murder/terrorism (call it what want) to 'prevent' it from happening.

Same reason as Saddam. It gives them a license to expand at will--always with the threat of nuclear arms behind them. Nuclear weapons aren't toys. And given that their ideology favours expansionism, that's dangerous. They're a collection of crackpot Islamists who've attacked your country, the UK, and targets in the United States repeatedly and recently.

These attacks also embarass the regime by making it look weak, and that could bolster confidence in the opposition movements as well. Weakness is not an attractive quality in a regime that promises divine victory, or continued patronage, or threats of violence--depending on which the motive of a given member of the Iranian public for supporting or enabling its continued rule.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

How to suppress education? by killing the students, very effective.

[C0ckney]

Same reason as Saddam. It gives them a license to expand at will--always with the threat of nuclear arms behind them. Nuclear weapons aren't toys. And given that their ideology favours expansionism, that's dangerous. They're a collection of crackpot Islamists who've attacked your country, the UK, and targets in the United States repeatedly and recently.

saddam didn't have nuclear when he invaded kuwait.

iran's ideology is based on expansionism, really, how much has iran expanded since, say, the 1979 revolution?

please point out where iran has attacked the UK and US.

These attacks also embarass the regime by making it look weak, and that could bolster confidence in the opposition movements as well.

so you think that, say, taliban attacks on US or afghan government targets are justified, because certainly embarass the regime in kabul and bolster the confidence of the opposition groups, no?

[Zevico]

As to attacks, see e.g. attacks on US and most recently UK embassies--which constitute US and UK land; or a planned attack against the Saudi ambassador and fellow restaurant-goers in the US; or arms suggling in the US backed by Iran.

Utopian Islamists who think suicide-murder is the way to heaven armed with nuclear weapons are a threat. That is the case whether they are Iranian or not. And Iranian possession of nuclear weapons will lead to a nuclear proliferation in a region filled with powerful Utopian Islamist advocates of suicide-murder. Egypt, Saudi Arabia (technically fundamentalist Islamic rather than Islamist per se) are just two possibilities. That's leaving aside the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria (or the current non-Islamist Syrian regime), or Hezballah, for that matter. All of them are much more likely to seek nuclear weapons if Iran obtains them. A nuclear arms race between authoritarian dictators in a region commonly described as a tinderbox filled with utopian Islamic fundamentalists and Islamists. Does that sound like an appealing prospect to you?

[C0ckney]

As to attacks, see e.g. attacks on US and most recently UK embassies--which constitute US and UK land

not carried out by iran, but by some angry crowds, although possibly with government approval.

a planned attack against the Saudi ambassador and fellow restaurant-goers in the US

so a 'planned' attack which didn't take place and the circumstances of which are, to put mildly, unclear.

arms suggling in the US backed by Iran.

i have no idea what you are referring to, but smuggling something isn't an attack.

so no attacks then.

nuclear proliferation is a horse which has long since bolted. the stable door cannot be closed now. the threat of MAD keeps states from using nuclear weapons. even if more states acquire them, this still applies. it's a concern sure, but it's not any more of a threat than say, pakistan or north korea having nuclear weapons. the things we hear from the war propagandists are remarkably similar to what we heard about iraq and its mythical WMDs.

[dannubis]

There's no moral equivalence between the US and Iran, Arrian. The world where Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons is better than the one where it does; enough better that it's probably worth the price one Iranian physicist. Which part of that do you disagree with?

Question: how can you talk about moral equivalence between "you" and "them" when in the very next sentence you accept the death of a civilian as collateral damage for "the cause". Very strange reasoning indeed.

Just call it what it is. If Iran chooses to be the international pariah, then they have to accept the consequences of their course. Nothing moral about it. OTOH, the West should be very carefull in the amount of meddling in other peoples affairs.

[dannubis]

Same reason as Saddam. It gives them a license to expand at will--always with the threat of nuclear arms behind them. Nuclear weapons aren't toys. And given that their ideology favours expansionism, that's dangerous. They're a collection of crackpot Islamists who've attacked your country, the UK, and targets in the United States repeatedly and recently.

Funny, but exactely the same thing can be said about Israel and settlement development. Still they haven't threathened to use their "toys" no?
And Israel had its fair share of attacks on foreign targets as well.

[dannubis]

i'd like to hear your justification for why iran getting nuclear weapons is such a big problem that it requires murder/terrorism (call it what want) to 'prevent' it from happening.

Exactely this.

It is unfortunate they would spend their money on weapons rather than development but that is their problem.

For the rest, it is going to be their problem to make sure that their bomb always remains under their control since they know that teh alternative is 20 cm of glas.

[Zevico]

iran's ideology is based on expansionism, really, how much has iran expanded since, say, the 1979 revolution?

See the second stage of the Iran-Iraq war, entitled "Iran tries to conquer Iraq."

[C0ckney]

iran's ideology is based on expansionism, really, how much has iran expanded since, say, the 1979 revolution?

See the second stage of the Iran-Iraq war, entitled "Iran tries to conquer Iraq."

rubbish. iran tried to win a war which it did not start. invading your enemy's terrority has always been considered a good way to win a war.

to claim that is evidence for 'expansionism' is totally dishonest.

[molly bloom]

There's no moral equivalence between the US and Iran, Arrian.

How true. Only the United States has actually destroyed two cities with nuclear weapons.

And used chemical weapons against Viet Nam.

And experimented on its own civilians.

And subverted a democratic government in Iran.

[Az]

rubbish. Israel tried to win a war which it did not start. invading your enemy's terrority has always been considered a good way to win a war.

to claim that is evidence for 'expansionism' is totally dishonest.

hmmmm...