Iran has the right to defend itself against the threats of an aggressive power

[JackRiddler]

Please note, I not only oppose the proliferation of nuclear weapons but advocate their abolition. The longer these arsenals are maintained, the more certain it becomes (regardless of the back and forth of power politics) that they will be used. There is no justification for their use, no matter what the circumstances.

But now consider Iran:

Despite opposition from most of the world, including most of its allies, the US regime invaded Iran's neighbor Iraq, in violation of international and US law. This has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi nationals so far; it may lead ultimately to the deaths of millions; and it has caused an exodus of millions of refugees.

This was a war of aggression, the highest international crime, and it has caused a genocide.

Iran has never committed a comparable crime. It is assailed for supposed threats, but unlike the US has never executed these, or shown the capability to do so.

The US has thousands of nuclear weapons; many of these are no doubt deployed in the Indian Ocean. The US maintains naval assets there, on the other side of the world from the US, with more firepower than most of the countries in the region. What does this have to do with US defense?

The US has never renounced a first use of nuclear weapons; even the Soviet Union did that. On the contrary, under Rumsfeld the Pentagon renewed planning for the use of mini-nukes as bunker busters and initiated development of a new generation of weapons for that purpose. These plans have focused especially on hitting targets in Iran.

North Korea developed nuclear weapons. Within a few months, the Bush regime toned down its rhetoric and started talks with NK.

Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and is pushing for the US to attack Iran.

If Iraq had tested nuclear weapons in advance of the US invasion, perhaps its people would have been spared the horrors they have since suffered.

Someone please explain it: If the US and Israel and all the other nuclear powers have a right to the bomb, why doesn't Iran? If the US is making plans for nuclear first-strikes on Iran, who can justify denying the bomb to Iran? Unlike the US, Iran could argue that it really does need the bomb for its defense.

[davidinalameda]

1. and so does Israel

but of course so many people don't quite understand that

[PDJane]

2. It's past time to abolish nuclear weapons.

However, I'm going to point out that the only country to have used chemical and nuclear weapons on any scale is the US, and that the US continues to do so.

Israel does not have a reason for nuclear weapons; the only people who would use them aren't aiming at Israel. It's just more bullying all around.

[TheMightyFavog]

3. Ummm...

The United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Imperial Russia all made quite liberal use of chemical weapons during World War I.

[JackRiddler]

4. That is correct.

Further demonstration why nuclear weapons need to be abolished.

That will not be accomplished by having a rogue superpower deploy its own nuclear weapons around the globe, threaten to use them whenever it feels like on whomever it designates an enemy, and expect everyone to back down or be "obliterated."

Given that the continued use of war as a means of politics is guaranteed to one day kill billions of people and cause the end of the present civilization, said superpower ironically is in an excellent position to lead the way on worldwide disarmament: an end to the arms trade, a suspension of weapons development, the abolition of nuclear weapons, the scaling down of all conventional forces in every region, the conversion of warmaking industries to peaceful purposes, and the end of war as a means of politics. Now there's a globalization worth having!

Which is it going to be, America?

[eridani]

29. Well, we're going to have to break a lot of iron rice bowls to make an omelet

Or something like that.

[PDJane]

5. Yes. They did.

However, they did not use them on the scale that the US has used chemical weapons in Viet Nam and Cambodia. Plus, of course, DU munitions are nuclear weapons, and the US continues to use those around the world.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. DU munitions are not nuclear weapons

what a strange idea.

[tama]

8. Radioactive munitions then

if you want to play semantics, causing similar harm as A-bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for multiple generations, but on much wider scale from Yugoslavia to Iraq.

[Pavulon]

9. Nope

handled it, moved it, seen its msds. Like lead. DON'T EAT IT. Don't be in a tank that gets hit by it.

Nothing like a fission or fusion bomb. no cesium, no gamma, etc.

You statement is incorrect.

[JackRiddler]

10. Golly!

Don't shoot it, either then. Because when you do, it breaks up into dust and CAN BE BREATHED IN. Not to mention that it's inflammable.

So what is your message for the Iraqis stuck in the hell that the United States has rained on them for 18 years? "Remain calm - don't breathe."

DU is a crime against humanity. It doesn't matter that other weapons are worse, that doesn't change its immorality.

[Pavulon]

12. Yep, they are dropping like flies in bosnia

mmm nyet. DU is a heavy metal, there are plenty of non nut case resources.

It is used to destroy armor. Probably not to common in iraq these days.

Morality is not a factor. Many oncology publications classify it is a social issue.

[JackRiddler]

14. Yeah, tell us how all the deformed Iraqi babies are caused by something else...

If you're honest, though, you'll have to admit that if it's not the DU, it's probably the poisoning of the water, the destruction of the power grid, the malnutrition caused by the sanctions regime...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm

Published on Sunday, March 30, 2003 by The Sunday Herald (Scotland)
US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is 'Illegal'
by Neil Mackay


BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.

DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects in children.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defense with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.

Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.'

(.... more, including these links)

Background on Depleted Uranium Ammunition
For much more check out:
Discounted Casualties - The Human Cost of Depleted Uranium provided by the Hiroshima, Japan newspaper - The Chugoku Shimbun.

Also See:
US Wins Defeat of Depleted Uranium Study
Reuters 11/30/2001

Iraqi Cancers, Birth Defects Blamed on U.S. Depleted Uranium
Seattle Post-Intelligencer 11/12/2002

Iraq Links Cancers to Uranium Weapons; U.S. Likely to Use Arms Again in War
San Francisco Chronicle 1/13/2003

Also the Federation of American Scientists has a Depleted Uranium Ammunition page. And the Military Toxics Project has a campaign against depleted uranium weapons.

[Pavulon]

18. Shit source .. attached a real source

wife leaves copies of lancet and oncology mags around. Here is a legit PRIMARY source.

Don't eat lead paint.

http://www.onk.ns.ac.yu/archive/Vol9/PDFVol9/V9n4p213.pdf

[tama]

24. I hear you

"Morality is not a factor"

Yep, I can see that you have very efficiently suffocated your conscience.

[eridani]

30. Don't inhale particles of it

Why, I wonder, are we shipping tons of contaminated soils out of Iraq to be stored in Idaho?

[MonkeyFunk]

33. No, that is wrong, too

they're dangerous because of heavy-metal toxicity, not radioactivity.

[DrCory]

28. LOL!

The U.S. used chemical weapons on a larger scale than the Great Powers during WWI? You're kidding, right? Otherwise, you need a refresher course on the First World War.

[cali]

27. egads. Do some reading and you'll be less likely to make outlandish

claims. The U.S is certainly NOT the only country to have sued chemical weapons on any scale. Not even close. History is important.

[Pavulon]

7. If the US was to make a first strike

there would be no second strike from iran. The totality of that event is a horrible thing.

Iran mined the straights of hormuz. Killed marines in beirut, and engaged the us un a naval battle which it lost, badly. They are were not our friends under carter or clinton.

To smash you concept..

Take north korea. Now assumed nuclear.

If they launch any more missiles over japan or towards hawaii or during a shuttle launch or towards china they WILL be answered with ICBMs. Trident D5s or topols do not break up in flight.

As sure as the sun rises those previous acts will be considered a first strike and lead to a one sided nuclear war.

If iran go nuclear, which is >>improbable<<, they increase the risk of a stupid act leading to the death of their entire population.

[JackRiddler]

11. Iran was attacked by the US in 1953.

Its government was overthrown. A US-backed dictatorship fucked the Iranian people for the next 25 years. Otherwise there would not have been a revolution, or a chance for the Islamists to take power. Iranian students then stormed the US embassy and took a bunch of CIA personnel hostage (which was wrong). The hostages got out alive, didn't they? But in response, the US and Saudi gave a green light to Iraq to attack Iran in 1980. They provided Iraq with weapons, satellite intel and billions in credits to sustain in a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians. And you're going to repeat propaganda about marines in Beirut (who had no business there either)?

It's time to stop making excuses for these crimes.

[Pavulon]

13. Lots of crimes, they go back 1000 years

right now matters.

1953 is irrelevant. The US under many administrations interfered. Greece is a great example of the other way these things work out. The fact that they killed french in beirut, the french bombed iranian troops, is not relevant..

If they move towards a nuclear weapon like N. Korea they increase being removed from the face of the earth.

Not all the hostages got out alive.
Not all your enemy's enemies are your friends..

[Malikshah]

15. How can one be so wrong. This is an abuse of history and its purpose

To ignore 1953... the threaten wiping them off the earth...

That kind of post is what is wrong with the world today.

Myopic. Ill-informed. Lacking in compassion. Lacking in rational thought.

[JackRiddler]

17. Pretty much, yes.

Thanks.

[Pavulon]

20. Who is threatening to "wipe them off the face of the earth"

we dont need to make that threat. It is understood.

Iran is a long running problem. It will continue to be so under the next administration. Be sure to have you position on this settled out when we run the country.

If you choose to ignore context the of my post fine. Compare them to N. Korea's position. You think they are better off now?

Problems will still be there. That administration will continue long running policy.

Bet on it. However dont act like we are the ones who make, fund, or enforce it.

[Malikshah]

23. This quote implies as much.

"If they move towards a nuclear weapon like N. Korea they increase being removed from the face of the earth."

North Korea and Iran are apples an oranges.

To try and compare the two is as ill-founded as Cold War foreign policy fears of a "red under every bed"

This is short-sighted foreign policy thinking, the kind of thinking that leads to inaccuracies and faulty decisions.

It conflates so many issues in a simplistic fashion. Why, it is the very thinking that led the U.S. to make the ill-advised decision to help overthrow the Mossadeq government in 1953. Why, this thinking is quite Pavlovian...

The context of your post is to condescendingly warn Iran to be careful if they know what is best for them.

What about demanding of our government a shred of intelligence? What about informing the general populace of the importance of events such as the 1953 coup as opposed to deeming it irrelevant?

[leftchick]

32. Lessons From History

This should be required viewing for all ill-informed americans....



http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iran/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJRcOF7rEfQ

[Malikshah]

35. Yup-- Kinzer's work is also good.

Have been getting links from Just Foreign policy for a while now.

[Pavulon]

41. As for information

this is commonly published in many books, Legacy of Ashes the most current iteration. Discussed on fake news shows like the daily show..

People can choose to be informed or they can sleep through history class.

[Malikshah]

43. Hard to sleep through a class

one teaches oneself.

[JackRiddler]

16. The Persian Empire that invaded Greece no longer exists...

The CIA that overthrew Mossadegh does, however, and many people are still alive from that time.

You'd be amazed how well reparations for that historic crime would help to smooth things for diplomatic solutions and an end to hostilities.

Strange that you seem to think repeating the same failed policies that created all these enemies, over and over, is going to lead to a different result one day...

[Pavulon]

19. No the Greece where we buried communists

bought elections and fought a cold war with the USSR. Same era we and the british used influence in iran..

Where is the USSR? Where is EAST BERLIN, oh yeah, we buried it.

[Diclotican]

21. Pavulon

Pavulon

To say that the 1953 coup against a democratic elected leadership in Iran don't matter is just plain arrogance. Off course it matter. It is the backside of everything that have been happen in IRAN the last 30 year or so. The US "friend" the Shan of Persia was not a jolly good fellow, but rather a god old dictator who wanted to control the country by force

And was doing it, good helped by the good old USA...

I hope not Iran would get a nuclear device. Not because I believe Iran would use it, in anything else than self defense.. But because if Iran was to get a nuclear device, we would not se the end of what is happening anytime soon. But look about what happened after North Korea was blowing the nuclear device they had. The US was softening the rhetoric, and then back to the drawing board with exactly the same "deal" mr Bush was walking away from i 2000, because it was a deal mr Clinton had managed to make...

No one is interesting of more tension in the middle east. Not Iranians not everyone else.. But US are one of the few country, who say that Iran is a danger for everyone in the world. But have no clue how the history of the country they say as their enemy have been for more than 1000 year. The last 30-40 year have been a struggle for the Iranian people.. And if we had understand what the overthrown of the democratic elected prime minister have given the iranian population some very deep scars then we "might" understand why they don't trust us.. They have no reason to believe that "we" would give them what we are talking about in so high prices. The west as a collective have never given Iran more than grief for as long as Iran have been a modern country...

If they who say Iran is a danger, have the slightest idea of what the history have learned the iranians then we might can unlock why we cant understand them... And then we might even manage to understand them in the end... You know TALK TO THEM instead of treat them with nuclear war... That is what the current administration are doing, treating Iran with a nuclear war... And they still believe that Iran would just give up their ambition.. If my country was threatened like that, also we would recognize the need for a nuclear device or two. And we do have the money and the know how to build it. But all our political parties have decided that that is not to be. And everyone is pretty wel in agreement about it. But it would not cost that mutch, and it would be don in 4-5 year... From the start, because we have nuclear reactors, two Small reactors but regardless, they can be made to make plutonium... for a device or two...

Iran have reason not to trust United States. As United States have reason not to trust Iran. But if Representatives was just sitting together and talked. Then "maybe" both sides would understand why the other side was saying.. And then maybe, just maybe the first clomp of hope for a more peacefully future would emerge to.. But I doubt that REASON and Compaction for the other side is something the US president, and his cabinet are willing to think about.. They want war regardless if it is a true danger, or just a dam lie..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[Pavulon]

22. Your post is logical and english is excellent..

better than mine on most days.

I believe we should talk with Iran. I believe the current government missed an opportunity to work with a more progressive government there.

We and the British overthrew governments for many reasons, oil, perceived communist alliances, etc. So did the USSR.

I am not DENYING we did these things. But saying that right now they are not relevant. An apology will not cover events since 1953.

We fought shooting wars with Iran since then, naval battles that are taught at the naval academy (praying mantis).

Iran does not want a war, we do not want a war. However both sides pander the threat the other poses for political gain.

A single nuclear device or two is not a deterrent. It just makes any error in judgment, like firing missiles over japan or towards Hawaii the start of a nuclear war.

The people of Iran have more gain by working with western europe than europe and the us have to loose.

[Diclotican]

25. Pavulon

Pavulon

Off course Iran for the most part have much to get, to work together with Europe and then US about a lot off issues. Not just the case with the iranian nuclear reactors.. But also in many other prospect, where the iranian leadership, have more in common then anyone want to think about.. But when our political leaders want to play hardball with Iran, over thing that should be manable to work out... Then you get what you get....

Iran is a big country, and wanted to be treated as such, it is a old country with a rich culture and heritage.. Iran was one of the first "superpower" millenniums before US was created.. And when US want to bully Iran, you would guess the iranian would try to get back when they can... And the track record when it come to US, with their Iranian counterparts is at best bleak...

Iran want not war with US. It have still wounds who are pretty raw from the Iranian Iraqi war in the 1980s and still today many who have been dead for many year are been digging up, and reburied by their loved once.. Not long before the US attest Iraq, many prisoner of war, who was dead, in Iraqi control was given permission to be transported to Iran... Some "good faith" among muslims I guess...

Off course a single nuclear device are not a deterrent.. But when you have one, you can always make more... And no one know how many devices the North Korea have today. And that is maybe the real reason that the Bush administration was walking back to the table to work out a deal with the North Korean counterparts..

And for the most part, the North Korean rockets have de integrated midair if I am not totally wrong.. It took US and Soviet many year to master the know-how to build rockets who don't blow up midair.. My guessing is that NK, must go the same road, if they want to build that type of rockets... And compared to US and USSR, the North Korea are still living in the stone age...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[eridani]

31. The notion that Iran threatens anything that matters is bullshit

They are only a threat to the establishment of a US military dictatorship over the entire ME until the oil runs out. The nature of the threat is that they are there and have a sizeable population that just by existing gets in the way of this goal.

[Diclotican]

39. eridani

eridani

After the iraq disaster, the old good United States of America have no moral right, to say that other nations are a danger to the world. Many who believed that US was right, have turn away from exactly the same reason, we who was against the war in the first place, who even demonstrated against it, (my first, and hopefully last demonstration) had it right.. Iraq was no danger to the world - before the invasion of Iraq.. After it have been a breeding ground for extremist who DO hate all of us.. Not just the americans who occupied the country, but also every one else who don't like what they want..

And we KNOW that the NEO-CONs was thinking about going to war against Iraq, but also against every one else that in some way had doing US some wrong.. And in the middle east US have had enemies in many year.. Mr Bush slip of the tung about the danger his father the former president GHW Bush was in, when some assisi ons from the iraqi government wanted to kill him is prove enough for me, that this was against the ego of mr Bush jr. Not about Chemical and Biolical weapon. But honesty just because he wanted to punish Saddam Hussein alone and his regime..

And in the proses of get rid of Hussein, he also get rid of a country and the brake up of Iraq would be painfully and long.. Specially because it would say that other forces than the iraqi population would take over the country.. Not US, but possible Tyrkia, Iran and Saudi-Arabia, off course of the pretext of defending them against the civil war...

What mr Bush, and in broader pretext mr Bush have been doing in Iraq is destabilized the whole area, and it would sees as US forces would be in the area for a long time... If the next president are not talking to the "enemies" and work out a solution who can give the americans a reason to leave in some dignity.. If they don't do that, it would not be with dignity the armed forces of US would be send home, but send running for the borders as fast as they possible can..

We all know the pictures from when Saigon was fallen, and we all know who chaotic it was, for a long time before everyone last transmission from YOUR allied in Saigon was dead.. How many transmission would the soldiers of US hear, when Baghdad is fallen again?.. How many shoppers would it be, to send civilians, who was "friendly" to the americans in Iraq. But been seeing as a traitor by the next regime..

The image of US have been broken.. And as something broken you can fix it.. But it would not be as good as it once was.. The way of Imperial making that mr Bush and more to the point the neo-cons was dead long before he was speaking about the evil of mr Saddam Hussain.... And yes he was evil. But also a very good "tool" when US needed him... ThAT lesson are not forgotten by the arabic population regardless of what their rulers must say in public..

US are addicted to CHEAP oil to transport, and much more than just that.. And they are not justed to drive less, eat less and maybe even live "less" than their parents.. Even if it means that US have to live of others prosperity.. If the oil in Iraq was used to Iraq benefit I would not say a word. But it _is a fact_ that this oil are _not_ used to the benefit of the iraqi population, rather to the benefit of e few.. Not to the benefit of the many..
And yes, american have been shocked to experience that Petrol are not free, but rather expensive.. But even then american have a long way to go, to get into what European have experienced on a daily basis for many, may year.. We know Oil are not cheap, we KNOW that petrol are not free.. And we do pay a lot of petrol just to get by... American are just experience for the first time in their life, that the way they have been living their life was possible with some big dump faults.. And they have no clue how to undo that yet.. I fear that US would be into some really nasty surprises the next decade of something like that...

No I don't hate USA, but it is maybe time for americans to, to get a grip of why thing are as they are... And not just dreaming what could be.. United States of America are not a single island anymore...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[eridani]

42. I know you don't hate the people who live in America

However, when our media talks about "America" and "American interests", they generally mean the coroporate elite whose project it is to dominate the rest of the world by military force. The rest of us poor saps who just live here are disposable human garbage to them, every bit as much as the rest of the world's people.

[Diclotican]

44. eridani

eridani

Thank you, because you know I dont hate the people who are living in your country. Many sees to believe that be against the regime, is been against the country, and it is good to se that you can se the difference between the two..

If enough american, poor og rich had stand up and talk loudly about what is happening, not in the thousands, but in the millions, even the most cynical powergrabing fucup, must have listen to what the people have to say... In Europe, the only word of the Russian revolution was something that our corporate elites was been scared to think about.. And therefore over the next 90 or så year, for the most part european have a good life... And that is something that the american cooperate elites would have to learn the hard way I guess... Remember, you far outnumber the number of the elites... And as such you can tell them who their domination should be.... To the interest of the public, not to the few who "Own" the business...

But that is maybe just a dream from the "Old Europe" I guess.. And to dominate the world by military means, you have to use a lot of money you problem don't have... Or what should have been used to give roads and such what they needed of repair I guess...

No country on the face of the earth have managed to dominate the rest of the world by military means alone.. Empires have crumbled because of overstretch, peoples by the thousands have been wasted.. And the result?: At best a stalemate. At worst the whole peoples slavery and the end of the empire... America (US) was dominating the most of he world, by peacefully means, and many of us, in Europe, as in Africa, Asia and such was not angry about what US was doing. Because we was growing up with the image of US as "one of us" attitude...

This Neo-Cons you have in your midst, should have been arrested all of them. And then get a trial. Many of them would off course get off the hock, but they who was given the Administration the food for their wars, would be punished, hopefully. And then might, even the americans could se what the neo-cons have been doing to their country.. Wasted money, and resources who else should have been used to the best of the peopole...
The Neo-con ideology is nothing new. It is the nazi-ideology but under something Else's colour.. The NEO-Con ideology, are just fascism in other cloth. All the signals are there..

And I find it very interesting that the PNAC, Project for the New American Century have closed their doors.. It have been the Neo-cons "Public face" to the INTERNET for many year now.. And now the whole thing is closed.. Maybe they just dint want everyone to se what they are up to now?.. Hopefully "someone" have miraged every one last word the PNAC had written down and given public view, so that we can tell the world, what the Neo-Cons really are about..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[devilgrrl]

45. I see that the Neo-Con's favorite DUer has pined in

Manifest Destiny - YES!

:sarcasm:

[Echo In Light]

26. Imagine: One World Without Nuclear Weapons

Imagine: One World Without Nuclear Weapons

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/05/imagine-one-world-without-nuclear-weapons/

[leftchick]

34. A Blow to the US Anti-Iran Strategy

but not a big enough blow thanks to our worthless media......


Bogus Claim, al-Maliki Stall U.S. Plan on Iran Arms
Analysis by Gareth Porter*

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42373


WASHINGTON, May 14 (IPS) - Early this month, the George W. Bush administration's plan to create a new crescendo of accusations against Iran for allegedly smuggling arms to Shiite militias in Iraq encountered not just one but two setbacks.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to endorse U.S. charges of Iranian involvement in arms smuggling to the Mahdi Army, and a plan to show off a huge collection of Iranian arms captured in and around Karbala had to be called off after it was discovered that none of the arms were of Iranian origin.

The news media's failure to report that the arms captured from Shiite militiamen in Karbala did not include a single Iranian weapon shielded the U.S. military from a much bigger blow to its anti-Iran strategy.

The Bush administration and top Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus had plotted a sequence of events that would build domestic U.S. political support for a possible strike against Iran over its "meddling" in Iraq and especially its alleged export of arms to Shiite militias.

The plan was keyed to a briefing document to be prepared by Petraeus on the alleged Iranian role in arming and training Shiite militias that would be surfaced publicly after the al-Maliki government had endorsed it and it used to accuse Iran publicly.

[KansDem]

36. According to the Bush Doctrine, they have a right to attack us RIGHT NOW

If they believe we will attack them, they can attack us and be justified.

Bush outlines strategy of pre-emptive strikes, cooperation
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush declared in an aggressive new national security strategy Friday that the United States will stop any adversary challenging America's military superiority and adopt a strike-first policy against terrorist threats "before they're fully formed."
The 35-page document, titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," marks the end to the deterrent military strategy that dominated the Cold War and officially shifts the country to a pre-emptive policy that Bush first outlined at West Point in June.

"Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. ... We cannot let our enemies strike first," Bush wrote in the document submitted to Congress as required annually by law.

"As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed," he added.

--more--
USA Today

[Winterblues]

37. Iran signed the non proliferation treaty

They have done everything within the treaty according to inspectors. The USA is also a signatory but it continues to create more nuclear weapons against the treaty..

[JackRiddler]

48. True, I should have emphasized this...

The NIE leak of 2007 and the IAEA reports settle the question - Iran is not for now pursuing nuclear weapons.

The point is that if they did, it would be a rational response to the threats they face from a nuclear superpower.

[Sezu]

38. Because a nation which hangs boys just because they are

gay is hardly a nation to be trusted with nukes.

[Diclotican]

40. Sezu

Sezu

It is not THAT long ago, that being a gay was a criminal offense in most Western country.. And if we are going 100 year back, you was in more than one way in deep shit, if you confessed to be gay... Even when you as not been hang by the goverment...

So I guess, the collative memory are longer than the individ when it come to this thing..

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[JackRiddler]

46. No one is to be trusted with nukes.

Please define for me who should be trusted with nukes. What about governments that have already used nukes on civilian populations? What about governments that refuse to renounce first use? What about those that develop new generations of nuclear weapons for battlefield use?

(Also, please provide the documentation that Iran hangs boys because they are gay. I don't doubt or know for sure.)

[JackRiddler]

47. kick