kactus

Derek, I have argued this in length on another thread titled is Israel going to bomb Iran. From the psyche of an Iranian if you are surrounded by US forces, constantly threatened that you are next on the line and you are having to leave with the fear that it could happen anytime, you have North Korea that has nuclear capability and hasn't been attacked. Now if you were that Iranian wouldn't you want to have nuclear as a deterrent?

Trying is not the same as having it. But in essence having the capability gives the perception of deterrence. But let's look at it from another persective. Iranians have realised that the oil reserve is not likely to last forever. Having the nuclear capability would to a certain extent help them provide an alternative source of energy.

No one knows...They also say they don't have nuclear weapon. Do you believe them?

Whilst you bring up all these horror stories about Zahra Kazemi and the thirteen year old girl I hope you don't just take a one sided view you also appreciate the fact that there distibguished people like Shirin Ebadi and many others within the Iranian society that are fighting really hard for human rights issues. It's very easy to take a brush and call them all "uncivilised muslims" which is what I have seen here by many posters.

These types of war scenarios have been talked about and discussed at lengthy level here and elsewhere. It started from the Rest of the world first involving Israel attacking Iran. The goalposts then got shifted to get Canada on board to help Israel in Federal politics section and now it appears here in US politics... Personally, I think this guy Mitt Romney wants to make a name for himself, buy votes and fulfill the appetite for some hawkes and sabre rattlers. It is inconceivable why Iran would want to attack Israel without being attacked first. It just doesn't stack up why a country like Iran with no history of attacking another country would want to attack Israel conventionally or potentially by nuclear. I just get a sense there are many people on this forum that are trying very hard from every different angle to get canadians to go to war with Iran for Israel...

Maybe true...but the work of intelligence services is not something that can become subject of a discussion in a thread. At the moment it is all speculative.

This is absolutely correct and given the nature of the leadership and the hierarchy is very much plausible. I have to add that any possibility of an attack by the west does increase the nationalistic sentiment amongst disgruntled Iranian youths who would not have supported this government. This is not something that you can ask for source as we can see this in any country that may be subject to a threat especially one like Iran that has a rich history predating islam.

Well...That's what tends to happen when people leverage the arguments for their own agenda. Sometimes they say that Iran's leader has said he wants "wants Israel wiped off the map" (which isn't true) and sometimes they say whatever we shouldn't believe anything Iranians say. Pick and choose so to speak. Coming back to this topic I was one of those people who didn't believe the involvement of Mossad in the explosion. However, given the nature of the government and sensitivity around this they may not want to leak what has actually happened or the potential involvement of Mossad.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/11/12/uk-iran-blast-idUKTRE7AB0BA20111112?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Let them get into that mess they wanna create...Only time will prove what kind of fabricated BS is behind all this.

You gotta love this...The official Iranian press release states that is was an accident while moving munitions....There are still people here saying it must have been Mossad.Who is sabre rattling now? http://uk.news.yahoo.com/huge-blast-hits-guards-west-tehran-reports-113055900.html;_ylt=A2KLPyPyzr5OoVEAawfOfMl_;_ylu=X3oDMTNxODZiNjduBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBXb3JsZFNGBHBrZwNlYzczOGU4Yi03NmUzLTM4Y2YtYmNhNS1lNWFhMGU4ZTBkZWUEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3RvcF9zdG9yeQR2ZXIDZTdjY Apparently we should believe that Iran has one or two nuclear bombs because we are told so. On the other hand there is another twist to this story with some people claiming that Iran is a decade away from a nuclear bomb. Make up your mind ffs...

Inorder to attack you need to create a contrived atmosphere that the enemy exists...After the cold war there was a vaccum. Islam seems to have filled that vaccum... Let me articulate it this way: If you give zero credibility for your perceived enemy then it doesn't matter what action you take as long as you can remove that perceived threat by whichever means even though there is no proof that the threat even existed. Iran with a theocracy is a perceived threat to the west and their interest in the Middle East. Even if the iranian leader hasn't said "wiping another country off the map" (you can check the exact quotes) it still justifies for an attack...You may ask yourself why? That's because those fanatics, carzy, rabid mullahs (that are dissimilar to saudi royal family puppets) want somehow to take on the whole world and attack every single western country when the consequence of even attacking one country is fully known to them. Saddam reached his fate when he attacked Israel and subsequently Kuwait...Why should Iran follow the same fate? Unfortunately, Iran is that perceived threat in many eyes to gather the support of all other countries for taking action. Let's face it if Iran didn't have oil we probably wouldn't be having this conversation on why Canada should participate in these "gathering support" against Iran!

Nevertheless the question still remains...Iran during Shah was a powerhouse in the ME and a viatl ally to US protecting their oil interest. You say Iran under islamic revolution was at collision course with the west which is true and perhaps explains why the eight year war with Iraq played a vital role for the west to arm Iraq and weaken the theocratic regime in Iran. No one forgets that infamous handshake of Saddam with Donald Rumsfeld in the eighties before Saddam reached his expiry date later. What baffles me is how the US administration that always thought Iran's theocracy at loggerheads with western values literally removed two of Iran's bitter enemies namely taliban and Saddam. What kind of message do you think this sends to mullahs? Well...that is my point of contention...If countries like Israel, South Africa and even North Korea abort/ withdraw from such treaties what kind of credibility do you think such a treaties will have in the light of imminent threat. If there is lack of credibility because countries abort it what difference does it make if countries like Iran adhere to it? Afterall, we know that becoming nuclear has made it harder to attack North Korea because they have a deterrent. I guess the same thing can be argued for Israel if any country even contemplate to attack.

Well it does matter. Hypothetically, if Iran was still an ally of US, which happened to be the case during the Shah then having a nuclear bomb wouldn't have materialsed...Infact it was the US that encouraged them to acquire the capability back then. The question is not about treating Iranians differently from iraqis, libyans, israelis or anyone else for that matter. It does however raise a bigger question that if Israel can bypass the questioning by becoming a non-signatury of the treaty other countries will follow suit...

You know the irony about all this is that Israel happens to be a non-signatury of NPT, which is why they do not get questioned about their nuclear activities. However, it has violated many UN resolutions but then again this seems to be 'ok' for the so called "international community". I mean if those resolutions are there to be trampled and discredited then it begs the question why should there be difference for any other country?

Why don't you do it? It's not as though you are holding back from creating a "militarised zone" in the arab gulf countries... Personally I would have prefered the whole region free of nuclear weapons including Israel. Oreally? Then what is? Enquiring minds want to know.

Bouncing back? Not at all! Just stating the facts as it is...

That is irrelevant and you are deliberately paraphrasing... No one is talking about love for commies or Iranian fundamental....why is that so difficult to grasp that there is a difference between government and their people (meaning iranian people) iranians should be in no position to pay for these sanctions.

Oh common spare me the revisionist...Soviet Union had an arsenal of nuclear weapons even more than US at the time. There's absolutely no common ground to compare that to Iran now that the threat is gone. But ya know [it's all the fault of those god damn evil commies ooops eyeranians....]

Because that is what saves lives for something that hasn't happened and not likely to happen. Why do persians have to be persecuted?

Ahhh If by sqeezing you mean tighter sanctions it hasn't worked in the past and will only hurt ordinary Iranians. How was sanction on spare parts for passenger aircrafts supposed to hurt the regime ffs..32 years of sanctions, which has gradually increased post Shah's era seems like a pretty darn loooonggg serial to me...

Which is why the US government has taken the rhetorics down a notch according to the latest news coming out...A little perspective on the issue.

You know out of all these countries UK has done relatively well. It has a deficit four times it's GDP yet has an interest rate almost at par with Germany (always known as the powerhouse of eurozone. That's because of all the right measurements the UK government has in place to keep the credit ratings in check. Even Italy which has a much lower deficit than UK has an interest rate of 7% and possibly a bailout...As for Greece things are bound to get worse before they get any better and that wouldn't happen any time soon.

You do realise that the experts have said there is no evidence of Iran having the nuclear bomb....

Have you also read where this report says: and then it goes to say.... Read my posts preceding this with JBG instead of indeed being selective.