Good post, I may not agree with all that you say but you present your arguments in a rational and well informed manner.

The Shah and the ayatollahs are almost forgotten history now, I recall that Carter did make a military attempt to rescue the hostages which ended disastrously. I make no criticism of the US over this, other than the fact that it failed.

In my opinion the Shah was a poor and corrupt leader with a particularly nasty police force, SAVAK, another forgotten name. I wonder if the Ayatollah re-employed any of them? That's usually the case with totalitarians.

I grew up with a huge admiration for Israel, this tiny friendless country alone in a sea of enemies. Leon Uris you have a lot to answer for.

Boy did disillusionment set in there.

Good post, I may not agree with all that you say but you present your arguments in a rational and well informed manner.

The Shah and the ayatollahs are almost forgotten history now, I recall that Carter did make a military attempt to rescue the hostages which ended disastrously. I make no criticism of the US over this, other than the fact that it failed.

In my opinion the Shah was a poor and corrupt leader with a particularly nasty police force, SAVAK, another forgotten name. I wonder if the Ayatollah re-employed any of them? That's usually the case with totalitarians.

I grew up with a huge admiration for Israel, this tiny friendless country alone in a sea of enemies. Leon Uris you have a lot to answer for.

Boy did disillusionment set in there.

SAVAK became SAVAMA under the Ayatollah. Same players, same tactics and it continues today if you happen to catch the recent news.

All of us that were there during the Shah lived under the threat of SAVAK. You simply had to know what to say and who to say it to. I supported the Shah so I was never worried about SAVAK.

I first went to Iran in the early 70's and saw many improvements during my time there. I personally feel the Shah did a good job with building the infrastructure and, more importantly, a growing middle class. There was also a religious freedom among the Iranians they no longer have.

In my very humble opinion, the Shah was head and shoulders above the current regime.

I honestly believe that Iran will return to the "moderate Arab" fold with a little US encouragement. They have the middle class you mention and are not really happy as Islamic fundamentalists.

However when names like the "Axis of Evil" are bandied about with the ongoing threat of invasion it's not hard for the nutters to keep them in line. Perhaps lifting the embargo a little would be a start, the terrorists seem to have all the money they need, so some might trickle down to those who need it.

Edit: Make that "moderate Muslim" fold, I know the Iranians aren't Arabs.

What they could use as much as anything is a little moral support from our current administration.

I do NOT expect Obama or Hillary to give them any. We are back in the Carter era.

This is how we should be discussing things. Interesting post Chuckd, I plainly have some things to learn from someone who was in Iran..... I have the feeling that your perspective may be different/alternative from some history books....but I say that as an ignorant with only a hunch.

As for Israel: Sure they have a right to defend themselves. You said, "Have they gone too far at times? Probably they have.". This is where I get my impression of your "alternate" view, as it is a gross understatement to say "at times" and "probably" (implying possibly not).

To "defend" against home-made rockets that fall short in barren fields by wholesale invasion and slaughter is in my view, and I daresay in many other's views, is a whole lot more that pobably going too far.

Furthermore, it is not my view per se, but documented fact that the Israeli's treat Palestinians in East Jerulsalem as 2nd class citizens....it is their homeland too.

Most Western nations got up in arms about apartheid in South Africa.....but apartheid in Israel is condoned by the US by the very fact that when there is an oportunity to use diplomacy to put pressure on Israel, they only pay lip-service to it, if that.

As I said, I resent the spoilt child that gets special treatment at the expense of the under-priveledged child.

This is how we should be discussing things. Interesting post Chuckd, I plainly have some things to learn from someone who was in Iran..... I have the feeling that your perspective may be different/alternative from some history books....but I say that as an ignorant with only a hunch.

As for Israel: Sure they have a right to defend themselves. You said, "Have they gone too far at times? Probably they have.". This is where I get my impression of your "alternate" view, as it is a gross understatement to say "at times" and "probably" (implying possibly not).

To "defend" against home-made rockets that fall short in barren fields by wholesale invasion and slaughter is in my view, and I daresay in many other's views, is a whole lot more that pobably going too far.

Furthermore, it is not my view per se, but documented fact that the Israeli's treat Palestinians in East Jerulsalem as 2nd class citizens....it is their homeland too.

Most Western nations got up in arms about apartheid in South Africa.....but apartheid in Israel is condoned by the US by the very fact that when there is an oportunity to use diplomacy to put pressure on Israel, they only pay lip-service to it, if that.

As I said, I resent the spoilt child that gets special treatment at the expense of the under-priveledged child.

I don't think it's the rockets falling in an empty field that have upset them over the years. It is more likely to have been the suicide bombings in buses, restaurants, hotels, shopping malls and market places. It was Munich in 1972, the Rome airport in 1985, the Air France flight taken to Entebbe in 1976 and many other similar incidents. There is also the little matter of the holocaust that cannot be forgotten.

I have been on the periphery of some of the Saudi bombings over the years and it is not a pretty scene. Innocents die and there seems, at times, to be no accountability for it. People get angry and that anger is sometimes taken out on the nearest target.

Many times the Palestinian people have been caught in the middle. You have Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and some in Lebanon that are all after Israel. Their sworn enemy is the State of Israel and everybody in it. These groups attack Israel or make raids and then hide in plain sight among the indigenous population, many times hoping there are civilian casualties of Palestinians in order to further their own causes. The chains on most of these organizations are being pulled in Iran, by the way.

While you may not like the Israelis, let me ask you a question:

If there was only one nuclear weapon in all of the Middle East, who would you want to have custody of it?

The Israelis or the Palestinians?

Chuckd asked, "If there was only one nuclear weapon in all of the Middle East, who would you want to have custody of it? The Israelis or the Palestinians?" If there is a choice as to how many nuclear weapons in the WORLD - none.

PB, we know what chuck was getting at.

He was asking if you HAD TO CHOOSE between either the Israelis' or Palestinians having a nuke which one would it be, bearing in mind that you MUST choose one or the other.

Myself, I think that there is no correct answer although I might lean towards the Palestinians having purely on the grounds that the Israeli's have the technology to do more harm with it.

If there was only one nuclear weapon in all of the Middle East, who would you want to have custody of it?

The Israelis or the Palestinians?

The answer to the question has no bearing on who is guilty of the worst behaviour.

At first, I was going to say Israel on the grounds that Palestine is being pushed too far and one day might just lose all common sense and use it.

But then, Israel has no regard for international opinion and Israel may very well use it against Iran, while Palestine knows full well what the repercussions would be if they dared to use it: America and the West would be on them like a ton of bricks...besides, where would they use it where thousands of their own people wouldn't be affected?? They really could not use it.

Thus, in the spirit of the question, I say Palestine as they are the least likely to deploy a nuclear weapon.

If there was only one nuclear weapon in all of the Middle East, who would you want to have custody of it?

The Israelis or the Palestinians?

My problem with nuclear weapons is this.....

How can those that have them go around the world telling others they cannot?

Dont even get me started on the fact that none should have a technology that does not have a solution for disposing/removal of the waste created by such technologies.

This is interesting.

We have had four responders to my question.

Two chose to avoid an answer.

Two chose the Palestinians.

I choose the Israelis. They have had nukes for an unknown number of years yet have never even threated their worst enemies with it's use. They have proven they can be trusted with the technology.

The Palestinians are just like the Pakistanis. They would sell out to the highest bidder.

This is interesting.

We have had four responders to my question.

Two chose to avoid an answer.

Two chose the Palestinians.

I choose the Israelis. They have had nukes for an unknown number of years yet have never even threated their worst enemies with it's use. They have proven they can be trusted with the technology.

The Palestinians are just like the Pakistanis. They would sell out to the highest bidder.

Not sure if I am in your poll but if I am .....

I am not avoiding anything.

A silly multi choice question that is limited by the questioner is hardly a question with a choice.

As for anyone proving they can be trusted with technology that will affect a whole planet.......it has long been agreed any nuclear warfare is a lose/lose situation for all. But when you say Israelis can be trusted? Man some of the worse blood shed through the ages has been religious based in some way or another. Zealots whether they be Jew, Catholic,Muslim, Sunni etc etc. are the least to be trusted as they feel righteous & ultimately rewarded for their Zealotry.

Just because a bully is allowed to strut around with open carry does not suggest they can be trusted not to use it as a last resort.

Which is in fact what nuclear war is a last resort.

As for selling out to the highest bidder...... :D

Some serious pot calling kettle black in that one.

This is interesting.

We have had four responders to my question.

Two chose to avoid an answer.

Two chose the Palestinians.

I choose the Israelis. They have had nukes for an unknown number of years yet have never even threated their worst enemies with it's use. They have proven they can be trusted with the technology.

The Palestinians are just like the Pakistanis. They would sell out to the highest bidder.

Not sure if I am in your poll but if I am .....

I am not avoiding anything.

A silly multi choice question that is limited by the questioner is hardly a question with a choice.

As for anyone proving they can be trusted with technology that will affect a whole planet.......it has long been agreed any nuclear warfare is a lose/lose situation for all. But when you say Israelis can be trusted? Man some of the worse blood shed through the ages has been religious based in some way or another. Zealots whether they be Jew, Catholic,Muslim, Sunni etc etc. are the least to be trusted as they feel righteous & ultimately rewarded for their Zealotry.

Just because a bully is allowed to strut around with open carry does not suggest they can be trusted not to use it as a last resort.

Which is in fact what nuclear war is a last resort.

As for selling out to the highest bidder...... :D

Some serious pot calling kettle black in that one.

I don't recall saying you "avoided" answering. I said you "chose" not to answer, which is entirely different.

You may choose not to answer for any number of reasons, one of which you mentioned. You thought my question was "silly".

You might also point out where I said the Israeli's could be trusted with anything other than nuclear technology. If that statement is untrue, please provide me some information that refutes it.

You might also explain what you mean with this sentence, accurately quoted from your post:

" Just because a bully is allowed to strut around with open carry does not suggest they can be trusted not to use it as a last resort."

Thank you for your time.

I don't recall saying you "avoided" answering. I said you "chose" not to answer, which is entirely different.

You might also point out where I said the Israeli's could be trusted with anything other than nuclear technology. If that statement is untrue, please provide me some information that refutes it.

You might also explain what you mean with this sentence, accurately quoted from your post:

" Just because a bully is allowed to strut around with open carry does not suggest they can be trusted not to use it as a last resort."

Thank you for your time.

Two chose to avoid an answer.

I choose the Israelis. They have had nukes for an unknown number of years yet have never even threated their worst enemies with it's use. They have proven they can be trusted with the technology.

Seem pretty clear to me...But perhaps you meant something else?

As for the open carry remark....It is in reference that a country with Nuclear weapons has the implied power that goes with it.

Same for anyone who obtains an open carry permit & struts around with a side arm in plain view.

You think the nut that runs North Korea would not have been dealt with long ago if not for that?

Same goes for others.

I'd better get in with an answer or I'll be suspected of avoiding the question.

No, I wouldn't want the Palestinians running around with a nuke, there may be people there who would act logically and responsibly but there are more than a few that wouldn't.

They could easily pass it on to people who are capable of detonating it in a place where the Arab world would not be effected by a little radioactive fallout.

I think the Israelis are unlikely to use their nuclear weapons, on a battle field they're virtually useless and if they took out Tehran or Tripoli the flow of money from the US could slow down or even cease, and that would condemn Israel as effectively as a nuclear attack would.

I doubt the Palestinians want a bomb; I'm convinced that there are people in the Russian military who would sell one to anyone with the money so I'm sure there's someone in Saudi Arabia who'd put his hand in his pocket quickly enough.

I'd better get in with an answer or I'll be suspected of avoiding the question.

No, I wouldn't want the Palestinians running around with a nuke, there may be people there who would act logically and responsibly but there are more than a few that wouldn't.

They could easily pass it on to people who are capable of detonating it in a place where the Arab world would not be effected by a little radioactive fallout.

I think the Israelis are unlikely to use their nuclear weapons, on a battle field they're virtually useless and if they took out Tehran or Tripoli the flow of money from the US could slow down or even cease, and that would condemn Israel as effectively as a nuclear attack would.

I doubt the Palestinians want a bomb; I'm convinced that there are people in the Russian military who would sell one to anyone with the money so I'm sure there's someone in Saudi Arabia who'd put his hand in his pocket quickly enough.

Depending on size & if the fallout got into the jets stream I am not sure anywhere would be unaffected.

Hopefully we will never know the answer to that one

As for the US ever slowing/stopping the $$$....Ben Shalom Bernanke? Rahm Israel Emanuel?

As for Russia as seen by the chart I posted above they sure could sell a few.

Then again you have to wonder the need for as many Nuclear warheads as either the US or Russia hold.

Aside from the obvious threat to themselves due to accidents both from the warheads & from the toxic waste generated by building them.......where is the need for that amount in any perceived threat anyway?

I feel it goes back to the open carry threat

As someone who grew up in the 50s and 60s the awareness of nuclear weapons was a lot more then than it seems to be currently. Probably because they used to pop one off on your doorstep every couple of weeks. How Generation X weren't all born with an extra head is a constant source of mystification to me.

Both of the superpowers (does anyone agree with me that we were better off, and the world more peaceful when we had two superpowers?) claimed they could take out all of the enemy nukes with no risk to their own population (the term pre-emptive strike came into being in those days) but the fact that no one tried it makes the claims dubious.

Now I get the feeling that everyone is a little embarrassed about the whole thing. Popping the enemy off from several hundred miles away type technology is much more popular and creates lots of jobs with out risk of anyone getting contaminated. (Wasn't Silkwood a great movie?)

dam_n, you guys are right. I did say "avoid". My apologies.

I shoulda said "Two chose not to provide an answer."

Silly me.

dam_n, you guys are right. I did say "avoid". My apologies.

No harm no foul

Chose not to ... avoided... concentration span is my problem, plus a lack of real passion for most subjects.

This is interesting.

We have had four responders to my question.

Two chose to avoid an answer.

Two chose the Palestinians.

I choose the Israelis. They have had nukes for an unknown number of years yet have never even threated their worst enemies with it's use. They have proven they can be trusted with the technology.

The Palestinians are just like the Pakistanis. They would sell out to the highest bidder.

Slightly unfair answer because you now suggest that the nuke could be sold. I took your question of "custody of the only nuke" to mean custody and custody only. The ability to release custody of it makes the question different....although I may answer just the same for the same reasons.

I too, voted for the Israelis in this highly unlikely poll.

However, if you're known to carry a big stick you don't need to wave it at people to intimidate them.

Chuckd falls into the commonplace failing of insisting there are no decent people among one's enemies or for that matter among a group we happen to dislike.

Isms like communism and Islamic Fundamentalism aren't something that's initially forced upon people at gun point, even though they may later be maintained in that manner. They are taken up by people with genuine grievances and who consider that they have nothing to lose.

I too, voted for the Israelis in this highly unlikely poll.

However, if you're known to carry a big stick you don't need to wave it at people to intimidate them.

Chuckd falls into the commonplace failing of insisting there are no decent people among one's enemies or for that matter among a group we happen to dislike.

Isms like communism and Islamic Fundamentalism aren't something that's initially forced upon people at gun point, even though they may later be maintained in that manner. They are taken up by people with genuine grievances and who consider that they have nothing to lose.

May I offer a disagreement about me?

I spent many a year in Europe, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and other points East and have many friends that are found in these countries. I have met many a person in those countries that might fall into an ism category that I could have and even later did befriend.

May I give you a personal example?

I was particularly attracted to one young lady I met in my hotel lobby in Moscow in 1976. I struck up a conversation with her, bought a few rounds of drinks and then invited her to my room to become better acquainted. Alas, it was at this point she informed me that, although she found me attractive and a pleasurable enough chap, she was really a KGB agent working the hotels to look for smugglers, spies and other sordid characters. Since she assumed I was none of the above, we merely parted ways and remained ships passing in the night. She was a Communist but I liked her.

I must admit I have never knowingly met an Islamic Fundamentalist I liked but, then, I am sure the feeling was mutual.

At this stage in my advanced life, however, I can admit, not proudly by any means, that I once met a Democrat that seemed OK. I didn't get to know him well though.

Those countries must have been fascinating back in those days. I had a mate who got into East Berlin on a tourist visa about that time.

He said that the restaurants weren't allowed to have signs on them, you had to ask around and someone would point out a house and you'd go and knock on the door.

Russia was just a tad oppressive back then. I ended up having to go to Leningrad (St. Petersburg) as well as Moscow. For some strange reason, I felt somebody was watching me all the time.

China in 1978 is another story better left for later.

I lived in the Lao PDR for a while. A paranoid expat told me that every foreigner had two secret policemen following him at all times. I looked for mine quite often but they must have been pretty sneaky.

Jews were in what is modern day Israel more than a millennium before the muslims. So who is the "invader"? Besides, blame the Brits for setting that one up - and with dividing Iraq while you're at it.

that's what i call uneducated argumental rubbish. Jews were of course several milleniae before Muslims in Palestine as Islam was founded much later than Judaism. the question is not which religion but which ethnic group lived first in this area and who were the invaders of the "promised land". didn't the "LORD" say "slaughter the Philistines and occupy the land"? who were the Philistines? none else then those which are called in arabic Falastini and in english Palestinians.

step down from your arrogant wobbly stool and study a little history instead of making utmost ridiculous comments!

Isms like communism and Islamic Fundamentalism aren't something that's initially forced upon people at gun point, even though they may later be maintained in that manner. They are taken up by people with genuine grievances and who consider that they have nothing to lose.

Communism wasn't forced upon people at gunpoint? What about the Russian Civil War after WWI between the Reds and Whites? Or the Chinese Civil War after WWII between the Communists and Kuomintang? Or Vietnam? I'm not even sure Castro was a Communist when he first took over in Cuba.

Islamic Fundamentalism pretty much defines the Taliban and they took over Afghanistan through war as well.

Jews were in what is modern day Israel more than a millennium before the muslims. So who is the "invader"? Besides, blame the Brits for setting that one up - and with dividing Iraq while you're at it.

that's what i call uneducated argumental rubbish. Jews were of course several milleniae before Muslims in Palestine as Islam was founded much later than Judaism. the question is not which religion but which ethnic group lived first in this area and who were the invaders of the "promised land". didn't the "LORD" say "slaughter the Philistines and occupy the land"? who were the Philistines? none else then those which are called in arabic Falastini and in english Palestinians.

step down from your arrogant wobbly stool and study a little history instead of making utmost ridiculous comments!

The English for Philistines IS Philistines.

Sceadugenga, did you use the term intelectual pygmy recently?

A bit generous I think.