[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: webjedi Yes, that is true, except you are leaving out some important facts: (1)If you want mutually assured destruction that is a good way to go about it: first tell a country you are going to destroy them, next point missiles at them. The first spark sets that war off. You'll have to forgive me if the idea of a radioactive cloud of epic proportions traveling the globe, killing Millions, in addition to the Millions killed in a nuclear exchange is somewhat unsettling to me.

Hmmm, that sounds a lot like what the US did in the 1940's.


Beneath the obvious hypocracy, I would tell you that the underlying "truth", is true. It would be stupid to behave in such a manor.

Quote by: webjedi (2) Iran has provided support to terrorist organizations. Apparently there is no such thing as terrorism to Iran, or at least they don't mind lying about it.

Was that an action they undertook of their own volition, or was that a reaction to aggression against them?

Quote by: webjedi (3) The ruler of Iran, and many of it's people, deny the one of the most well-documented events of human history. This does not sit easily with me.

Until your side is ready to address what they bring to the table, there isn't a lot of room for criticism from your side.

Quote by: webjedi (4) The U.S. and Israel are not Iran's only enemies. If Iran gets nukes, Saudi Arabia will want them.

Everybody wants them, but then that was supposedly the beauty of Mutally Assured Destruction. The destruction was mutual.

Quote by: webjedi (5) Iran does not have the resources to prevent theft of nuclear material. Heck Russia doesn't have the resources to prevent theft of nuclear material. And even worse, the United States, the country with the most resources of all couldn't prevent nuclear secrets from getting out.

Exactly, so what was the point of taking us to war over this one incident again?

Quote by: webjedi (6) Once the genie is out of the bottle there is no way to ensure it doesn't end up in the hands of Iran's Muslim enemies, which happen to be a whole heck of a lot closer, have much less to loose, and and have much more to gain by taking Iran out of the picture once and for all. I bet there are plenty of Sunnis that would suicide-bomb Tehran.

Yet, only one country actually used these weapons on other human beings, and you don't object to tham having possession of such monsterous devices.

Quote by: webjedi (7) Maintaining a ready-force of nuclear weapons is expensive and dangerous. If the weapons aren't ready to use they are no good. So Iran would have to maintain it's current prosperity or better to be able to sustain a nuclear program, something that Saddam couldn't even do. And then what happens when the evil U.S. and Israel know that is happening, especially after they have "assured mutual destruction"? You think the Israelis are going to let Iran get desperate? What about the U.S.?

While I agree that if it happens, it would be very ugly, but it almost seems as if you're attempting to transfer the blame here.


Let us remember whos policies led us to this conflict, and the imbalance that is at the heart of it.


These other countries asked for nuclear technology back in the 1940's, but we would not relinquish the information.

Quote by: webjedi If Iran picks up that gun, they'd better be ready to bring it on - forever.

Well, that was one of the underlying principles of the MADD philosophy you are defending, is it not?

Quote by: webjedi (8) Even though Iran is a comparatively wealthy nation, it doesn't have the money to de-commission nuclear weapons, which is much more expensive than making them.

Do we? And by that I mean, do we really?

Quote by: webjedi (9) Iran would be the 10th nuclear state. Of these 10 countries Iran is the 2nd most unstable government (Pakistan being 1st).

Again, you have nobody to blame but the people that put us into this position by playing every card wrong along the way.

Quote by: webjedi (10) If Iran were to come into possession of nuclear weapons it would be considered a moral sin by many, many Iranians. If that happened, the most redeeming factor of the Iranian people - their national conscience, would be eliminated, making them an evil country even in their own eyes. Iran has no WMDs precisely for this reason, and for this reason I do not supporting a full bombing campaign against Iran (presently), although I definitely believe they should not be supporting terrorists and something does need to be done about that (another discussion).

A rather profound observation, if it's true. ( and I believe it is ) However this assumes that you have the moral obligation, and the divine authority to act in such a manor, and last time I checked, neither are really true.

Quote by: webjedi In reality, the people of Iran are extraordinarily good people - moral, just, introspective (comparatively). That by no means makes them incapable of serious errors and, indeed, wrongs.

If only the same could be said about Americans. ( and I say that as one of you. )

Quote by: webjedi One thing is for sure: When Iranians themselves don't think they should have nuclear weapons, I think the World needs to make sure that doesn't happen.

Hmmm, is that a universal truth among all Iranians?


Since we both know it's not, the same exact truth must be true for America as well.