Again your justice scales need adjustment

Really? I'm not the one constantly making lame excuses and justifications for a rogue state to develop illegal nuclear weapons.

No but, your the one making excuses for a rogue state to keep the 200-300 nukes they already have & never allow inspection of but expect all their neighbors to allow inspections & not do what they do or they will bomb them?.... & oh can you spare 3 billion a year?

Maybe because Iran has threatened to destroy them continually.

Funny because the recent news...or should I say the news for the last decade has only one group threatening to bomb & that is Israel threatening their neighbors

Even now with their nuclear subs sitting off Iran pointing missiles....yeah who is threatening who?

Same as it ever was

Iran is enriching uranium; no dispute. But the level of enrichment which they are able to attain is nowhere near that needed for weapons-grade.

But as flying says, USA and Israel have both made more weapons against their own promises. Iran is only trying to... and not very near it. Yet Iran are villains, and USA and Israel are all pure as the driven snow. Baloney!

Maybe because Iran has threatened to destroy them continually.

Funny because the recent news...or should I say the news for the last decade has only one group threatening to bomb & that is Israel threatening their neighbors

Even now with their nuclear subs sitting off Iran pointing missiles....yeah who is threatening who?

Same as it ever was

When has Israel threatened to use their nuclear weapons?

Just curious and I don't have time to look it up.

Maybe because Iran has threatened to destroy them continually.

Funny because the recent news...or should I say the news for the last decade has only one group threatening to bomb & that is Israel threatening their neighbors

Even now with their nuclear subs sitting off Iran pointing missiles....yeah who is threatening who?

Same as it ever was

When has Israel threatened to use their nuclear weapons?

Just curious and I don't have time to look it up.

Never said they did....Nor has Iran ....Yet for Israel to sit subs off Iran's shores with Nuke capable weaponry pointing at Iran suggests what? Or even all the saber rattling they have done in these years past towards Iran,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Well I just find it hypocritical that some continue to point at Iran & continually say oh they want to wipe us off the map....Judge the actions........

Yet it is a tired old argument that has been refuted many many times & all the claims are based on a interpretation that even Iran themselves have said is wrong/false.

If Iran wanted to say what they are accused of saying why then do they deny it? Even the fact that they deny it is not enough to suggest they do not in fact want to blow anyone off the map? Yet who is the one rattling sabers?

Yes the same tired excuse has been repeated ad museum.

As I always say.......let us judge by their fruits or who throws the first ACTUAL stone.

But if we play by those rules we see Iran has not attacked a country in over 200 years

Yes let us also say directly because the Israeli cheerleaders/warmongers will now chime in but, but, but, they support terrorist..

Let those who do not support terrorist or have been accused of covert killings throw the 1st stone then. Regardless of when others support terror in the nick name of freedom fighters.

So let us judge by facts.....Iran has not DIRECTLY attacked another country why should they be attacked?

Even if at this point they say as North Korea did...F@#$ It then we withdraw from the NPT....SO What? Did Israel or USA bomb N Korea for that action?

A last word (I hope) for UG.....

to make cheese you have to milk the cow.... but milking the cow is not making cheese.

to make a nuclear bomb you have to enrich uranium... but enriching uranium is not making the bomb.

Ahmedinajab, on the farther side of eccentricity, might do anything anyway.

You have already admitted that Ahmedinajab "might do anything" and some posters will make up any old nonsense to dispute the obvious. Do you really think that Iran does not intend to develop nukes?

Ahmedinajab, on the farther side of eccentricity, might do anything anyway.

You have already admitted that Ahmedinajab "might do anything" and some posters will make up any old nonsense to dispute the obvious. Do you really think that Iran does not intend to develop nukes?

I'm sure he would like to... but intention means nothing without the ability to put it into practice. Iran does not appear to have this ability yet, though it may develop it in the future.

My answer to the original question I posed in this thread.... I think Iran is the greater danger because I think Ahmedinajab is genuinely unbalanced, whereas Netanyahu, though he's far too right-wing for my taste, is no fool. But if Netanyahu is convinced that Iran is likely to attack Israel in the near future, he might well decide to strike first.

Ahmedinajab, on the farther side of eccentricity, might do anything anyway.

You have already admitted that Ahmedinajab "might do anything" and some posters will make up any old nonsense to dispute the obvious. Do you really think that Iran does not intend to develop nukes?

I'm sure he would like to... but intention means nothing without the ability to put it into practice. Iran does not appear to have this ability yet, though it may develop it in the future.

My answer to the original question I posed in this thread.... I think Iran is the greater danger because I think Ahmedinajab is genuinely unbalanced, whereas Netanyahu, though he's far too right-wing for my taste, is no fool. But if Netanyahu is convinced that Iran is likely to attack Israel in the near future, he might well decide to strike first.

A simple question would be why does Israel feel the need to have so many nukes?

Is it so hard to understand another country may want one for the same reason?

Sad to say but once pandoras box was opened many realized it is a very good safety guarantee

To be left alone all you need is nuclear capability.

Israel is not "left alone", - they have been attacked repeatedly - so that blows that theory.

If Iran wants to be "left alone" they should stop funding terrorism and threatening other countries, because trying to build nukes is going to land them in a world of hurt and it will be on their own heads for violating the NPT.

A simple question would be why does Israel feel the need to have so many nukes?

A simple answer would be because they have been attacked over and over again by the huge nations that surround them and threatened by Iran repeatedly.

A simple question would be why does Israel feel the need to have so many nukes?

A simple answer would be because they have been attacked over and over again by the huge nations that surround them and threatened by Iran repeatedly.

Perhaps they ...Israel have been retaliated against yes.............

Iran has not threatened Israel.........that old song is a misinterpretation & everyone knows that.

Does not stop Israel or their cheerleaders from shouting it though...........

Again.......Judge by actions not words.

The Turkish flotilla would also be a good example....being attacked & folks killed in INTERNATIONAL WATERS

Not unlike the USS Liberty....remember that?........The only time in History the US has been attacked in INTERNATIONAL WATERS

& no congressional hearing has ever taken place.............Amazing to say the least.

Again judge by ACTIONS not words

Iran has not threatened Israel

Yeah, sure. You keep repeating this, but only one quote is in somewhat in dispute and many experts think that one is accurate too. There are plenty more.

"The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime."

-Ahmadinejad

"The way to peace in the Middle East is the destruction of Israel."

--Ahmadinejad

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

- Ahmadinejad

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its own decision and in the nuclear case, God-willing, with patience and power, will continue its path."

- Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

"So long as Israel exists in the region…there will never be peace and security in the Middle East. So the resolution of the Holocaust issue will end in the destruction of Israel."

- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's advisor, Mohammad Ali Ramin

Berger, Sebastien; Bishop, Patrick, "'Eliminate' Israel to solve the crisis, says Iranian president," The Daily Telegraph, Aug. 4, 2006, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/04/wmid204.xml

Butcher, Tim, "Israel will be annihilated in one storm, says Iran leader," The Daily Telegraph, April 15, 2006, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/15/wiran15.xml

"Iran to continue pursuing nuclear technology, supreme leader says," Associated Press, published in USA Today, via Associated Press, Aug. 21, 2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-21-iran-nukes_x.htm

What matters is not so much what is true as what Netanyahu and his cabinet believe is true. If they feel so threatened that they have to strike first, all hell will be let loose. And Ahmedinajab, on the farther side of eccentricity, might do anything anyway.

The pity of it all is that this or a similar scenario was implicit in the creation of the state of Israel; whether it happened fifty years ago, happens now, or will happen in fifty years time, it was bound to happen sooner or later. My opposition to the state of Israel, which is academic now anyway, is based as much on this as on any ideas that the Jews shouldn't have been given their own state in the first place.

This was post #7 on this thread. Without in any way supporting the Islamist nuts in Teheran, I do not see, and have never seen, how the Middle East can be at peace with Israel plonked in the middle of an otherwise Islamist region. Any other possibility is, in my view, wishful thinking, and rather dangerous wishful thinking at that. All the sympathy in the world for the Jews does not change that.

Iran has not threatened Israel

Yeah, sure. You keep repeating this, but only one quote is in somewhat in dispute and many experts think that one is accurate too. There are plenty more.

Like I have said over & over yet it falls upon deaf ears.............

Again judge by ACTIONS not words

Or continue with the war mongering loose interpretations.....& yet even then.........Actions not words are what count. Since you were a child perhaps you have heard...Sticks & Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?

I tend to agree with Humph, rather than your one directional diatribe.

That is nice to know. Your opinions are rather one directional as well, but if you want to believe that the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world who are ruling Iran are rational players and should have nucear weapons, that is your right. .

A little extreme, I must admit

Which part of this did you choose to miss then? If indeed it was interpreted correctly in the first place.

I guess it depends on your views of state sponsored terrorism, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan 1979-1989, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan 2001- ongoing

Oh yeah my Girlfriend is Different

I am not saying people do not have a right to defend themselves, of course they do, but if they want to be considered civilised, then act civilised, which ever culture that might be, I include all countries in that.

The Soviet Union and the Great Purge, Syria, China and the Great Leap Forward, Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge and all against their own people. There is plenty of blame to go around, but Iran is the biggest sponsor of state sponsored terrorism in the world and certainly should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

I guess it depends on your views of state sponsored terrorism, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan 1979-1989, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan 2001- ongoing

Oh yeah my Girlfriend is Different

I am not saying people do not have a right to defend themselves, of course they do, but if they want to be considered civilised, then act civilised, which ever culture that might be, I include all countries in that.

all countries? even the Greatest Nation on Earth™? how dare you Moss?!

p.s. missing in your list is Korea 1950, Guatemala 1954, El Salvador 1960, Bahia de los Cochinos 1961, Dominican Republic 1963, Chile 1973, Panama 1989.

You all seem to forget Burma, sorry Myanmar, whose brutal regime does at last seem to be trying to find ways of extricating itself from the dead end into which it has retreated. But I would not call it terrorism if it is directed against the country's own people; that's civil war, and maybe genocide.

Most terrorism nowadays seems to come out of Afghanistan/Pakistan (I put them together because the distinction is blurred in places), much more than out of Iran.

The taking out of bin Laden on the territory of a supposedly friendly nation was a terrorist act, however much all of us may be glad that bin Laden is no more.

I guess it depends on your views of state sponsored terrorism, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan 1979-1989, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan 2001- ongoing

Oh yeah my Girlfriend is Different

I am not saying people do not have a right to defend themselves, of course they do, but if they want to be considered civilised, then act civilised, which ever culture that might be, I include all countries in that.

all countries? even the Greatest Nation on Earth™? how dare you Moss?!

p.s. missing in your list is Korea 1950, Guatemala 1954, El Salvador 1960, Bahia de los Cochinos 1961, Dominican Republic 1963, Chile 1973, Panama 1989.

...also missing from the list is France and Germany in 1944.

You all seem to forget Burma, sorry Myanmar, whose brutal regime does at last seem to be trying to find ways of extricating itself from the dead end into which it has retreated. But I would not call it terrorism if it is directed against the country's own people; that's civil war, and maybe genocide.

Most terrorism nowadays seems to come out of Afghanistan/Pakistan (I put them together because the distinction is blurred in places), much more than out of Iran.

The taking out of bin Laden on the territory of a supposedly friendly nation was a terrorist act, however much all of us may be glad that bin Laden is no more.

Pakistan harboring Bin Laden might also be considered a terrorist act in some minds.

I guess it depends on your views of state sponsored terrorism, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan 1979-1989, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan 2001- ongoing

Oh yeah my Girlfriend is Different

I am not saying people do not have a right to defend themselves, of course they do, but if they want to be considered civilised, then act civilised, which ever culture that might be, I include all countries in that.

all countries? even the Greatest Nation on Earth™? how dare you Moss?!

p.s. missing in your list is Korea 1950, Guatemala 1954, El Salvador 1960, Bahia de los Cochinos 1961, Dominican Republic 1963, Chile 1973, Panama 1989.

Don't forget Sudetenland in 1938, Czechoslovakia & Poland in 1939, soon followed by more than a dozen more.

Don't forget Sudetenland in 1938, Czechoslovakia & Poland in 1939, soon followed by more than a dozen more.

That was for Lebensraum and had been a perfectly legitimate reason in days of yore.

Billy the Conk did it be invading the peaceful Anglo-Saxon nation of England, for instance, and the Chinese will probably do it to Siberia in the not-to-distant future. If they don't occupy Africa instead.

Either move will gain them a lot of oil and gas, which would hopefully reduce the prices from other suppliers to the rest of the world.

Most of these instances are civil war rather than terrorism, though I admit it can be difficult to tell the difference. In the 1950s, we called the Communists in Malaya CTs (communist terrorists), I suppose because the impetus for their insurrection was not local. On the other hand, we do not call the Karenni fighting against Myanmar terrorists, because it is a homegrown insurrection.

Most of these instances are civil war rather than terrorism, though I admit it can be difficult to tell the difference. In the 1950s, we called the Communists in Malaya CTs (communist terrorists), I suppose because the impetus for their insurrection was not local. On the other hand, we do not call the Karenni fighting against Myanmar terrorists, because it is a homegrown insurrection.

we call terrorists freedom fighters and freedom fighters terrorists when it suits us. and after a while, when it suits us, we are awarding Nobel Peace Prizes to those we called terrorists or to some (allegedly Hawaiian born) clown who hasn't done anything anywhere concerning peace.

Most of these instances are civil war rather than terrorism, though I admit it can be difficult to tell the difference. In the 1950s, we called the Communists in Malaya CTs (communist terrorists), I suppose because the impetus for their insurrection was not local. On the other hand, we do not call the Karenni fighting against Myanmar terrorists, because it is a homegrown insurrection.

we call terrorists freedom fighters and freedom fighters terrorists when it suits us. and after a while, when it suits us, we are awarding Nobel Peace Prizes to those we called terrorists or to some (allegedly Hawaiian born) clown who hasn't done anything anywhere concerning peace.

I think this is two times I have agreed with one of your posts. Heaven help us.

Most of these instances are civil war rather than terrorism, though I admit it can be difficult to tell the difference. In the 1950s, we called the Communists in Malaya CTs (communist terrorists), I suppose because the impetus for their insurrection was not local. On the other hand, we do not call the Karenni fighting against Myanmar terrorists, because it is a homegrown insurrection.

we call terrorists freedom fighters and freedom fighters terrorists when it suits us. and after a while, when it suits us, we are awarding Nobel Peace Prizes to those we called terrorists or to some (allegedly Hawaiian born) clown who hasn't done anything anywhere concerning peace.

The Nobel Peace Prize is a bit of a joke anyway (paid for with the profits from dynamite). Some awardees are worthy enough (Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi, for example). Others are political appointees (no names, no packdrill) or obscure worthies whom I would not wish to denigrate, but who are just not world figures.

But I think we can agree, no Nobel Peace Prize for Netanyahu or Ahmedinajab.

The Nobel Peace Prize is a bit of a joke anyway (paid for with the profits from dynamite). Some awardees are worthy enough (Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi, for example). Others are political appointees (no names, no packdrill) or obscure worthies whom I would not wish to denigrate, but who are just not world figures.

But I think we can agree, no Nobel Peace Prize for Netanyahu or Ahmedinajab.

agreed! i'd appreciate if they were nominated for the PISS Prize

Iran is the biggest sponsor of state sponsored terrorism in the world and certainly should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

I guess many have their reasons for deciding who are labeled terrorist & who are not.

But I tend to just see aggressive groups. Whether or not someone else is on the receiving end of this aggressiveness

tends to determine what *they* will call the aggressors. Of course,as a reason/excuse for aggressiveness names are given to the groups that aggressors are targeting.

Sometimes aggressors are called freedom fighters, rebels, terrorist.....again just depends on perspective.

Does the parties giving the names gain or lose by the aggressiveness?

Things like what has happened & names given to groups in Libya should make it all pretty clear....

Or even Afghanistan both now & back when the Russians were there.

Lastly the folks who have to live in the middle probably never see/label forces as freedom fighters from either side.

All they probably see are terrorist on both sides committing acts of violence.

Nonsense. "Freedom fighters" do not purposely target innocent men, women and children for slaughter to make political points. Only TERRORISTS do.