Read the forum code of contact
By: - 19th May 2005 at 20:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Personally, I have no problems with the idea of a nuclear Iran. They've got no missiles that can range to the US. They're not about to shoot one at us in the Gulf anyway, as they know we'd just shoot back. They have to be too smart to hand Al Qaeda a nuclear warhead: if it blows on US soil, do you think we're going to take a long time,investigate, build a UN-approved coalition, and then ask Iran to apologize nicely in the Security Council? No. About 30 minutes after the detonation, Tehran would evaporate. So, as far as the US is concerned, I see no reason why we can't live with a nuclear Iran.
You make a lot of logical points, but (in my opinion) they're all based on an illogical presumption - that is, the presumption of rational thought and behavior from a fanatical state like Iran. During the Cold War, we could all pretty much trust that the Russians weren't really going to wake up on the wrong side of the bed one day and do something stupid. I personally don't assign that level of trust to the Iranians.
By: - 19th May 2005 at 20:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You make a lot of logical points, but (in my opinion) they're all based on an illogical presumption - that is, the presumption of rational thought and behavior from a fanatical state like Iran.
Like I said, if they act irrationally, the response would dictate that they are never able to do so again. Ever. I doubt they're stupid, they just have different motives and thought processes than we do.
During the Cold War, we could all pretty much trust that the Russians weren't really going to wake up on the wrong side of the bed one day and do something stupid.
Why would we worry about the Russians doing something stupid? We had Kennedy and McNamara being stupid enough for the both of us :D
By: - 20th May 2005 at 02:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Like I said, if they act irrationally, the response would dictate that they are never able to do so again. Ever. I doubt they're stupid, they just have different motives and thought processes than we do.
exactly... I think Iran gearing up towrads WMD is more of a political move rather than strategical importance. More in the sence as to irratate the US than actually using it agains the US soil...
Why would we worry about the Russians doing something stupid? We had Kennedy and McNamara being stupid enough for the both of us :D
Totally agree with you here... Those burocrats did make a hell of a dangerous bluff. In a sence Khrushchev really deserves a nobel peace prize for stepping down peacefully...
By: - 20th May 2005 at 02:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Totally agree with you here... Those burocrats did make a hell of a dangerous bluff. In a sence Khrushchev really deserves a nobel peace prize for stepping down peacefully...
It was more than a bluff, it was a massive double standard. We had nuclear missiles in Turkey aimed at the USSR, but didn't want the Russians to counter that. That's kinda like, "Israelis can have nuclear weapons, but Persians and Arabs can't."
By: - 20th May 2005 at 03:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On a curious note - how exactly were Kennedy & Mc Namarra stupid during the crisis? I am an Indian so I didn't dig too much into the Cuban Missile Crisis but accepted the usual plain American version offered on the platter (which painted Kennedy & McNamarra as the saviours)
NO FLAMERS pls.
By: - 20th May 2005 at 03:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
McNamara was stupid during his handling of defense department business, not necessarily the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Kennedy, on the other hand, used nuclear blackmail to get what he wanted out of Nikita Kruschev. The problem was that the USSR was placing nuclear missiles in Cuba. Sounds like an aggressive move, right? Well, not exactly. The US had put nuclear missiles in Turkey a while before. Kennedy almost went to war over a double standard.
The thing is, Russia's ICBMs weren't top notch just yet, but shorter range missiles were working just fine. To counter the US ICBM and IRBM in Turkey advantage, the Soviets figured they'd put some weapons in Cuba. This wasn't the prelude to a Soviet strike on the US, it was a move towards deterrence.
By: - 20th May 2005 at 04:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Meat, Iran is not really as irrational as the media likes to portray her; they are classic geopolitical players and understand every nuance of the game. They also have tremendous nationalistic pride which makes them confront the rest of the world rather than just give up like Libya or Pakistan.
There are three other countries more likely to wake up on the other side of the bed; and they are namely North Korea, Libya and Pakistan, with the solid technical and political backing of China. All fingers point towards just one power.
By: - 20th May 2005 at 04:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sean, I thought it was Greece and not Turkey where the nukes were stowed?
By: - 20th May 2005 at 06:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Israeli double standard aside, let's push this "theory" further shall we? Now, if the usual counter to Iran should be allowed to have nukes because its their right, then there are quite a few countries in the world that's actually on the US's side that we simply should just say go right ahead. Because the problem comes down to this, Russian and China has no problems with anyone else that have nukes as long as they benefit from it, mainly to give US problems.
Now SOC, the logical thing isn't to say since the Israelis have their nukes so can Iran. It should be getting Israel to get rid of their nukes. This is actually very easy if people in the world are serious about non-proliferation (all parties, no double standard). Anyone suspected of developing or having nukes besides the known ones (Israel and NK are NOT considered as "known and declared") is automatically embargoed by all other nations. No, we can't have that. There goes the double standard flying everyway and pretty much sums down to "nobody is really serious". How about existing ones? Simple. Any nation with the expicit and implicit threat of them (like, "we can nuke LA") by their higher ranks without immediate apology and resignation will see their country faced with immediate and automatic global embargo. Forget the voting at UNSC...its just too ridiculous. Again no. So, the moral of the story? Nobody is taking this seriously so why should we? The scarry thing is, eventually all it takes is one person to make anything we know in the current world. :eek: What do we do then? :confused: :confused: :confused:
By: - 20th May 2005 at 06:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nope, it was Turkey. The missiles were of the Jupiter type I believe, though I could be wrong.
By: - 20th May 2005 at 07:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Totally agree with you here... Those burocrats did make a hell of a dangerous bluff. In a sence Khrushchev really deserves a nobel peace prize for stepping down peacefully...
A man that created the Cuban missile crisis, bringing the world close to WWIII and ordered the invasion of Hungary in '56 deserves the Nobel peace prize in your opinion?
Even if one wants to find a reason for the Russian missiles in Cuba (the fact that US had already nukes in Turkey, and yes they were Jupiter) I am curious to here your argument about the soundness of sending Luna (short range) nuclear missile, with no security protocols, leaved under the will of a regiment commander that could wake-up in the morning with a terrible hang-over after he emptied 2 liter of vodka (or rum) the nigh before and decided that US naval forces, a few miles away are responsible for that. Also if it was sound to send subs to force the USN blocade, subs armed with nuclear torpedo that could be equally launched at the free will of the sub commander.
Meat, Iran is not really as irrational as the media likes to portray her; they are classic geopolitical players and understand every nuance of the game.
A classic geopolitical player supports terrorist organizations (Hezbollah)?
Sometime I find myself admitting that Israel is one of the reason the peace will never come in the Middle East. Also the support the US is offering to Israel impose great costs (9/11 to mention only one). On the other hand, there is no other country in the region (and probably in the world) except Israel that has its very own existence challenged.
What imminent danger exists that would push Iran to such extreme measure of developing nukes? Who is going to invade Iran? What country menace the very existence of Iran? And, please, don't say US, because is the nukes issue that is making US to harden the tone towards Iran.
By: - 20th May 2005 at 07:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Meat, Iran is not really as irrational as the media likes to portray her; they are classic geopolitical players and understand every nuance of the game. They also have tremendous nationalistic pride which makes them confront the rest of the world rather than just give up like Libya or Pakistan.There are three other countries more likely to wake up on the other side of the bed; and they are namely North Korea, Libya and Pakistan, with the solid technical and political backing of China. All fingers point towards just one power.
I have to agree with this one...
By: - 20th May 2005 at 08:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In this day and age, do we really need nuclear weapons? As SOC mentioned, if Iran had to give up their nuclear weapons than Israel should as well. I agree! But what about Pakistan and India? These two countries have activelly pursued nuclear programs and although many growled when they tested their first weapons in 1997, I believe it was, no one really began to threaten them with economic sanctions or show of force. In fact, every one is now rushing to Karashi and New Dheli to sell them more weapons they might one day need to do whatever, either fight each other or someone else in the region. In India's case, they could end up in a large scale conflict with China. Could that ever happen, who knows but the possibility is still there.
But what about nations like France, England, the United States and Russia who all have sizeable nuclear arsenal? Why aren't they disarming if they are alway telling the smaller nuclear powers to disarm? What gives them the right to keep their nuclear weapon?
By: - 20th May 2005 at 10:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
First, my thoughts on the issue at hand.
I personally don't have problems with Iran having nuclear weapons either. Pandora's box has been opened since the late 1960s (with proliferation reaching Israel and South Africa, and only barely avoiding Brasil), and with India, Pakistan and North Korea having nuclear weapons now, i think it's impossible to try putting the lid back on. Using military pressure to force countries to stop their nuclear ambitions will only inforce their need for such weapons, and i think in the long run it's a counter-effective move. In the short run it will obviously work (like the Iranian-Israeli Osirak raids), but such attacks will do little to convince the targeted country with nuclear ambitions that their ambitions aren't justified.
Because of that, i seriously reject military actions against Iran's nuclear program. While it will buy some time, ultimately it will create a lot of badwill. Besides, i don't think that demonstrating the concept of pre-emptive strike to a country with nuclear ambitions is a good idea. What if they actually understand the lesson, and want to do an exam in it? Bad move IMHO. It will only work if you take over the whole country much like is being done in Iraq right now, which comes with a whole new library of problems. And definately without an assurance for a long-term success. It wouldn't be the first time that an installed/supported regime turns against it's original creator, and it would be even harder to keep under control in a democratic regime.
I think the way forward with nuclear(-ambitious) countries like Iran and even North Korea is to actually absorb them in the international community and treat them with a certain degree of respect. The Soviet Union was trusted with it's nukes because it had earned international respect during WW2; it most definately was not considered to be some sort of whacko rogue state like Iran, Pakistan and North Korea are portrayed today. I don't believe that any country with nuclear ambitions hasn't studied nuclear doctrine. And from that nuclear doctrine, they will probably understand that being a nuclear power in practice is more about diplomatic power rather than military might. Denying that diplomatic power only forces those countries to develop a doctrine based on actually using nuclear weapons, rather than just the big stick to softly walk around with.
So what do i suggest? I'd allow nuclear states to have a separate diplomatic forum to discuss stuff AND be continually remembered of their nuclear responsibility, obviously based on the wonderful dogma of MAD. Organise it like a subsidiary to the UNSC, without the veto power but more on a true balance-of-power idea. (Come and think of it, a few other criteria like economics or population could be used to organise similar sub-councils. Combined, it would give powerful countries automatically more power since they are represented in several fields rather than just one - apologies for digressing). This would need quite a bit of change of perception about the so-called rogue states, but this might in the end be easier than one thinks. After all, both Bush and Kim Jong Il are more than easy prey for anyone wanting to show them as complete morons ;) Moderated With apologies to Meat for the misunderstanding.
Now, time to do some quote-commenting.
Why would we worry about the Russians doing something stupid? We had Kennedy and McNamara being stupid enough for the both of us :D
Most true, although i think Kennedy's stupidity was purely based on domestic politics rather than Washington/Moscow politics. You shouldn't forget that there were members in upper echelons during the Kennedy administration who went to the manicure every day just to make sure they had a pretty finger to push The Button with. Our good friend Curtis was more than eager, for example.
A man that created the Cuban missile crisis, bringing the world close to WWIII and ordered the invasion of Hungary in '56 deserves the Nobel peace prize in your opinion?
Never mind that the Soviet invasion of Hungary only occurred after massive lynchings by the protestors. I don't want to justify the invasion, but the Hungarian uprising was a far, far cry from the Prague Spring of 1968, for example. I think Khrushchov is being tremendously underrated as a Soviet leader, both in the West as in Russia/the USSR. His de-stalinisation campaign was a brilliant example of peaceful upper-echelon reform in a totalitarian state, and if he hadn't been disposed of, i believe a true civic society could have been established in the USSR. Besides, the restraint he showed after continuous provocations by the US (overflights, the Cuban crisis, various international affairs) is remarkable. A Nobel Peace Prize wouldn't be unjustified if you ask me.
Not that the prize means anything, with folk like Arafat and Kissinger being on the list...
Even if one wants to find a reason for the Russian missiles in Cuba (the fact that US had already nukes in Turkey, and yes they were Jupiter) I am curious to here your argument about the soundness of sending Luna (short range) nuclear missile, with no security protocols, leaved under the will of a regiment commander that could wake-up in the morning with a terrible hang-over after he emptied 2 liter of vodka (or rum) the nigh before and decided that US naval forces, a few miles away are responsible for that. Also if it was sound to send subs to force the USN blocade, subs armed with nuclear torpedo that could be equally launched at the free will of the sub commander.
Seen Dr. Strangelove, Cru? A low-ranking decision to go nuclear was just as well possible in the Western camp. The strict security measures to prevent unauthorised launches/firings only became an issue in the 1960s. Before that, the US was just as happy to practically lay nuclear decision-making in the hands of a squadron commander or battalion leader.
A classic geopolitical player supports terrorist organizations (Hezbollah)?
A wonderful example of "Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder." Another wonderful example is the current Circus Posada in the US. Terrorists with a more or less reasonable political goal (Cuban exiles, Palestinians, republicans in Ulster, Basque separatists, Iranian rebels) are almost by definition seen as righteous in certain circles. Being non-religious myself i have far less understanding for religious whackos (Al Quaida, or Ugandan Army of the Lord if you want to add a few butchers-for-jesus) but the same is true for them. Again, apologies for digressing.
Sometime I find myself admitting that Israel is one of the reason the peace will never come in the Middle East. Also the support the US is offering to Israel impose great costs (9/11 to mention only one). On the other hand, there is no other country in the region (and probably in the world) except Israel that has its very own existence challenged.
I think Israel partly is to blame for their existance still being percieved as challenged, despite their massive military superiority in the region. Besides, the only country still rejecting Israel in the area is Syria, an issue which could long have been resolved if Israel would give up it's illegal annexation of the Golan (including the sweet water to fill their swimming pools with). While Israel was definately not treated nicely by it's neighbours until the mid-to-late 1970s, the country itself acting like the neighbourhood a$$hole since at least 1982 didn't help a lot. Especially since it still wants to uphold that image of a righteous, democratic country - which i don't think it is.
What imminent danger exists that would push Iran to such extreme measure of developing nukes? Who is going to invade Iran? What country menace the very existence of Iran? And, please, don't say US, because is the nukes issue that is making US to harden the tone towards Iran.
Well, neighbouring country Pakistan is a nuclear power, and not really an example of political stability. Would the faeces hit the fan in Pakistan, it would be too late to start developing a nuclear counterbalance. And i do think that the US and Israel are a legitimate concern. No matter how you look at it, the US has hardly been supportive of domestic stability in Iran ever since Mossadegh was overtrown in a CIA-backed coup. With nuclear weapons, Iran could well hope to be seen as a serious country on a diplomatic level by the US. You can't deny that the US so far has shown little respect to the country, both during pre-Islamic (the Shah puppet regime) or afterwards. Don't forget the Iranians are a proud country, something the US should definately understand.
By: - 20th May 2005 at 10:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You make a lot of logical points, but (in my opinion) they're all based on an illogical presumption - that is, the presumption of rational thought and behavior from a fanatical state like Iran. During the Cold War, we could all pretty much trust that the Russians weren't really going to wake up on the wrong side of the bed one day and do something stupid. I personally don't assign that level of trust to the Iranians.
Meat, I encourage you to turn your filters on prior to turning on your news, many thing your hear about Iran are colorized and axaggerated. The fact is that Iranians are not more radical than other islamic states and they have no interest in global game rather than following their local goals. And on the other hand, the presence of a relatively strong Shiiti Persian state provides a healthy balance to the majority of Sunni Arabs. If you blindly destroy this balance, you will have to deal with unexpected consequences in the future.
By: - 20th May 2005 at 11:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...But what about nations like France, England, the United States and Russia who all have sizeable nuclear arsenal? Why aren't they disarming if they are alway telling the smaller nuclear powers to disarm? What gives them the right to keep their nuclear weapon?...
Now even though I hate to admit it, I have to agree with the above statement.
It is precisely the fact that the above nuclear states (let's not forget about the Commie Emperors too) have nuke weapons that they lacked the morality and legality to argue against other states having nuclear weapons. :rolleyes:
As rockgordon correctly pointed out "..they are classic geopolitical players and understand every nuance of the game..." and even though the Ayatollas' behaviour is an 'eyesore' to both the US and the Israelis, it is inconceivable that they (Tehran) will be 'trigger-happy' and launch an attack at Tel Aviv once their own nuke missiles become operational.
The same argument applies to the Israelis (against superior Arab armies), India vs Pakistan or North Korea against the US/South Korea/Japan.
However, the above argument does not apply to Terrorist Groups like AQ. :dev2:
By: - 20th May 2005 at 11:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, personally I think nuclear bombs are overrated, probably no one (except the funny little dictator with the high-heeled shoes) would be stupid enough to use them. And compared to the impact of some biological weapons standing in the epicentre of a nuclear explosion is quite a nice death. Furthermore, the use of chemical and biological weapons can't be monitored all over the world, which makes them in my opinion much more dangerous (look at Sudan where the Governments used gas againts it's own population and no one really noticed it)
By: - 20th May 2005 at 11:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Never mind that the Soviet invasion of Hungary only occurred after massive lynchings by the protestors. I don't want to justify the invasion, but the Hungarian uprising was a far, far cry from the Prague Spring of 1968, for example
Now,let's see.US is to blame because invaded Iraq in 2003,but USSR is not to blame because invaded Hungary in 1956,since the Hungarian protestors lynchd a bunch of communist activists (not even Soviets one)... Strange
I think the way forward with nuclear(-ambitious) countries like Iran and even North Korea is to actually absorb them in the international community and treat them with a certain degree of respect
I don't think that a country will earn respect by having nuclear weapons. Fear, maybe.
Besides, the restraint he showed after continuous provocations by the US (overflights, the Cuban crisis, various international affairs) is remarkable
As remarcable as the building of Berlin wall? As firing on protestors in Poland and DDR? Strange...
The strict security measures to prevent unauthorised launches/firings only became an issue in the 1960s. Before that, the US was just as happy to practically lay nuclear decision-making in the hands of a squadron commander or battalion leader.
Never heard of. As far as I know, inthe US the decision to use nukes was up (as nowadays) to the President. Have you any data on the contrary?
A wonderful example of "Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder."I don't want to arrgue if the Hezb. is a terrorist group or freedomfighters.The fact is that Iran support them, so I wondered about the suyntagm:"classic geopolitical player"
With nuclear weapons, Iran could well hope to be seen as a serious country on a diplomatic level by the US. You can't deny that the US so far has shown little respect to the country, both during pre-Islamic (the Shah puppet regime) or afterwards.
Before Iran complains by been treated as a "crazy state" it shoud remember the US embassy hostage crisis and the fact that it rejected every attempt made by US to normalise relations. I reiterate the question:when Iran was threatened with an invasion by US? When did US atack Iran?
By: - 20th May 2005 at 12:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now,let's see.US is to blame because invaded Iraq in 2003,but USSR is not to blame because invaded Hungary in 1956,since the Hungarian protestors lynchd a bunch of communist activists (not even Soviets one)... Strange.
Please respond to things i've said, not things you put in my mouth while trying to get a point. The USSR is definately to blame for the Hungarian invasion and the bulk of the victims, but the invasion definately had a cause which goes beyond crushing Imre Nagy's "socialism with a human face." Read Khrushchev's memories if you don't believe me, he explains perfectly why he thought the Hungarian invasion was justified whereas he didn't think the same of the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia.
As for the lynchings emerging in Hungary after the Washington Post published the 'secret' destalinasation speach by Khrushchev, i'm not even going there. But the reason Khrushchev's speech was ment to be secret was exactly to prevent spontaneous lynchmob uprisings (no matter how understandable those uprisings were!).
I don't think that a country will earn respect by having nuclear weapons. Fear, maybe.
Fear and respect are the same in a diplomatic sense, you can take both the USSR and the US as perfect examples of this. Both are means to make sure your country is taken seriously.
As remarcable as the building of Berlin wall?
East German policies to prevent a braindrain, not a Soviet policy. It was supported by the Soviets though.
As firing on protestors in Poland and DDR? Strange...
Both were pre-destalinasation events, and far more domestic than you give them credit for.
Never heard of. As far as I know, inthe US the decision to use nukes was up (as nowadays) to the President. Have you any data on the contrary?
Have you read "Red Alert" by Peter George? While the decision indeed always was with the president, there were little to none fail safe devices to prevent rogue firings during the 1950s and early 1960s.
I don't want to arrgue if the Hezb. is a terrorist group or freedomfighters.The fact is that Iran support them, so I wondered about the suyntagm:"classic geopolitical player"
And other classical geopolitical players don't support freedom fighters/terrorists in other countries?
Before Iran complains by been treated as a "crazy state" it shoud remember the US embassy hostage crisis and the fact that it rejected every attempt made by US to normalise relations. I reiterate the question:when Iran was threatened with an invasion by US? When did US atack Iran?
In 1953 the CIA overthrew the democratic Iranian government, for one. Then there were numerous intrusions in Iran's territorial waters in the 1980s, a certain A310 shootdown for which not even apologies let alone reparations were offered... Even though the US might not have planned an invasion of Iran in the past, you can't deny that the US intentions could well have been percieved as hostile during, for example, the 1980s. And today just as well.
By: - 20th May 2005 at 12:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Read Khrushchev's memories if you don't believe me, he explains perfectly why he thought the Hungarian invasion was justified whereas he didn't think the same of the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia
Khuscheov memoirs are the ultimate truth? Saddam plans to edit his from the prison. You bet the the attack of Iran,the crimes against Kurds and Shia,the invasion of Kuweit will be "perfectly explained" and justified...
Even though the US might not have planned an invasion of Iran in the past, you can't deny that the US intentions could well have been percieved as hostile during, for example, the 1980s. And today just as well.
The facts are that until Iran started its nuclear program, not in a single ocasion did US mass forces at Iran border,draw plans for an invasion or even speakofan attack. The Airbus incident was regretable,but unlike the hostage taking of UA diplomats, not planed or even wanted.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 19th May 2005 at 20:06
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157067,00.html
So, if economic offers are out, and the other three options are regime change, military strikes, and just dealing with their possession of nukes, how long will it be before the US military moves from Iraq to Iran?
Personally, I have no problems with the idea of a nuclear Iran. They've got no missiles that can range to the US. They're not about to shoot one at us in the Gulf anyway, as they know we'd just shoot back. They have to be too smart to hand Al Qaeda a nuclear warhead: if it blows on US soil, do you think we're going to take a long time,investigate, build a UN-approved coalition, and then ask Iran to apologize nicely in the Security Council? No. About 30 minutes after the detonation, Tehran would evaporate. So, as far as the US is concerned, I see no reason why we can't live with a nuclear Iran.
Unfortunately, we are slaves to the survival of Israel, so anytime anything happens that might affect Israel we have to et involved. That is all this will be about, Israel. Feel free to disagree, but that's the way most US foreign policy in the Middle East seems to be directed these days. And the sad fact is, we aren't getting a worthwhile return on our investment. Feel free to take that as anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish if you want to, tht's standard procedure when someone speaks out against Israel, right?
Anyway, the only problem with the regime change or military option is that, well, we've kinda got a bunch of guys tied up in Iraq right now. This would make you believe that the limited option would be preferred, whereby we'd just send in the B-2s and take out the nuclear sites piece by piece. However, given our relations with Iran, it wouldn't suprise me if we tried to go for broke and take down the regime. After all, we do have the numbers.
And what about a coalition operation this time? The UK, France, Germany, and Russia are all against the idea of Iran going down this road, as are we. Would a coalition-style military operation, sanctioned by the UN, be out of the question? If the UK, France, Germany, and the US were all in agreement, it would probably be relatively easy to get approved and pull off.
But going back to the issue of UN approval, that's where this becomes irritating. Lugar stated that the four options mentioned above were being considered by the US for dealing with Iran. That raises the question of whether we might go and attack Iran without some sort of UN approval or whatnot. Now, as far as I'm concerned, being the sovereign nation we are, we can do as we damn well please if it is genuinely in our interest to do so. So can Iran, for that matter, this is by no means a double standard. And that's part of why I think Iran should be able to have nuclear weapons if they should desire. They'd have to know there are massive consequences should they use one, but having a gun and shooting up a bus full of people are two different things. Back to the UN issue, if we went in alone and dealt with Iran outside of the UN, we'd probably **** off a good deal of the world again. Pissing off a good deal of the world so we can protect ANOTHER NUCLEAR STATE, one that sells sensitive technology to the PRC, is completely asinine.
Oh yeah...speaking of double standards? If Iran can't have nuclear weapons, I want to see the Israeli's give up theirs. It's all about equality on the global stage.
And speaking of equality I just noticed I can say pissing off but not **** off. What?