[normajean777]

Some quotes from Ahmadinejad:

"Israel must be wiped off the map … The establishment of a Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world . . . The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of the war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land."

(Israel is) "a regime based on evil that cannot continue and one day will vanish."

"The Zionist regime is counterfeit and illegitimate and cannot survive"

"Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear"
Israel is "a contradiction to nature, we foresee its rapid disappearance and destruction."

Taken from the ADL website.

Now I didn't mean that he said "I will use nukes to blow up Israel". But he has made it extremely clear that he wants to destroy Israel, and the only way that they can physically make his goals true is to use nuclear weapons (or as I said long range missiles, and lots of them, although it would not be as effective).

We need to take this man at face value until he is controlled or loses power. Hitler armed for something like 10 years and the world stood by. If Iran is able to get the same clear passage, then we will all pay dearly just as in WW2.

Israel does not want to get bombed though:

"The former head of Israel's security service Shin Beit, Avi Dichter, believes Israel must now adopt a "preventative" approach.

"I was an Air Marshal and I was trained to open fire towards a terrorist once I identified two things: one that he has a means of warfare, a pistol, a hand grenade, etc, and the second that he has an intention to use it in order to kill innocent people," says Mr Dichter, who is now Israel's minister for Public Security.


"Israel is not going to wait until the first nuclear bomb is going to be dropped on Israel." "

Taken from the BBC.

Iran should be forced to disarm or face more than just sanctions (which usually get watered down by the UN before they are passed).


As for the UN, I think they should be abolished and a new international body should come in. I haven't thought a whole lot about it. But it would have a better system, with the 15 strongest countries making up the equivalent of the Security Council today, and a majority rule passage. (Then France can't block every neccessary war). I am not against democracy but there is always a fine line where it will work and where it does not. If the world is against a very powerful country's right to retaliate against its enemy's then they should not get involved. If they are against a war that has been started from a grudge than maybe they are right.

[JerryLove]

Now I didn't mean that he said "I will use nukes to blow up Israel". But he has made it extremely clear that he wants to destroy Israel, and the only way that they can physically make his goals true is to use nuclear weapons (or as I said long range missiles, and lots of them, although it would not be as effective).

No. He made it extremely clear that he wants Isreal gone. There's no mention at all of how that would occur, nor who would do it.

[normajean777]

What I'm saying is that the only way that they can do it (by themselves at least) is to use nuclear weapons.

[JerryLove]

What makes you believe that they plan on doing it by themselves?

[Qingu]

I'd put my money on Israel nuking Iran before Iran nukes Israel.

[Peatrical]

We need to take this man at face value until he is controlled or loses power. Hitler armed for something like 10 years and the world stood by. If Iran is able to get the same clear passage, then we will all pay dearly just as in WW2.

Hitler militarized the rhine land, annexed Czechoslovakia, merged with Austria, and of course went far above the military levels outline in the treaty of versaille. There's a huge problem with your analogy, and frankly I'd like to know how you can make such conclusions that we'll "all pay dearly."

The last nation with military power to illegal invade a nation in the middle east was the USA, not Iran.

But it would have a better system, with the 15 strongest countries making up the equivalent of the Security Council today, and a majority rule passage. (Then France can't block every neccessary war)

hahahaha we already tried that. It was called imperialism, last time I checked international bullying isn't the way to go. We're i nthe 21st century and every person in the world should be represented, and military strength should have nothing to do with this. I don't care where you come from, militarism isn't the way to go. Assuming you meant some other form of "strongest countries" I can say historically that doesn't work either. Mercantilism ,exploitation and forced values all are reasons why economically "stronger" countries shouldn't be seen any where in an international body with out their developing counter parts having equal say. Then again if you are for oppression, and father knows best ideology let's just scrap democracy and put the "strongest countries" in charge. Those people in countries like Columbia, which doesn't have a military comparable to most western nations, should of course not have any say and are worth far less than any beef eating gun toting republican.


Oh and for the record since we're taking slaps at France being a voice of reason.
France wasn't the only country that though Iraq was a bad idea... and by the way it is USA who used the veto most inappropriately. Shall I reference every use of the veto to let Israel get away with murder?

I'd put my money on Israel nuking Iran before Iran nukes Israel.

I wouldn't put it past them.


I lean towards Iran on this one as they claim they want it for peaceful purposes. Well I would lean towards them only they act very suspicious when they wouldn't take any of the various enrichment offers put on the table... the sheer arrogance of the USA in this deals makes me feel sick though. They brought the nuclear beast to the table back in 45, and used it for nuclear diplomacy, and then they realized they weren't the only kids on the block to have it and just can;t stand it when other kids want to play with the same toys. As I have said before in this day and age it is suicide, I repeat suicide to use a nuclear weapon on a nation, Iran wanting weapons would be deterrence. Back to the MAD days. USA tried to push them around and they can push back.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Peatrical

Those people in countries like Columbia, which doesn't have a military comparable to most western nations, should of course not have any say and are worth far less than any beef eating gun toting republican.

Hm. I can't fathom why you thought it would be prudent to generalize like that.

*loads shotgun*

They brought the nuclear beast to the table back in 45, and used it for nuclear diplomacy, and then they realized they weren't the only kids on the block to have it and just can;t stand it when other kids want to play with the same toys.

The thing is, nuclear weapons aren't toys. They're absolutely awful. I'm against nuclear proliferation and that includes Iran. I fail to see how America's hypocrisy is much of a concern in comparison.

As I have said before in this day and age it is suicide, I repeat suicide to use a nuclear weapon on a nation, Iran wanting weapons would be deterrence. Back to the MAD days. USA tried to push them around and they can push back.

That's not entirely true. Say Iran had two or three nukes and launched them against the US. The large land area America controls (3rd largest nation by physical size) would allow them to regroup in the aftermath. The US has more than 5,000 active nuclear warheads. So yes, suicide for Iran. Not exactly for the US.