Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels diplomats.

[GostHacked]

Inspired by, and using people funded by, trained by, and equipped by Iran and other foreign elements.

So you're saying doing this is okay?

Do you have any damn clue what the foreign intelligence services of any nation really does? Undermining other states is part of the job.

[eyeball]

I haven't seen a single poster on the left here express an iota of doubt that Iran is a peace loving country that wants nothing to do with nukes.

I've always doubted it, but I've also simply said so what?

All the rest of us, ie, the sane ones, are saying is that Iran is a scummy country full of wack jobs who should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Until you self-aggrandizing morons start lambasting our Dear Leader for pursuing intimate economic ties with the two biggest dictatorships and patrons of Iran in the universe, maggots will gag.

Blah blah blah.

[dre]

You mean like the UN, Europe, The United States? You mean Obama is just a slavering warmonger eager to start a war for no purpose?

None of those institutions have taken that position. They dont want any more countries with nukes, and they want to make sure Iran isnt building them because its illegal. Thats not the same thing is believing Iran would immediately use them to commit suicide if it DID build one.

[dre]

Inspired by, and using people funded by, trained by, and equipped by Iran and other foreign elements.

Actually most of the violence in Iraq, and the violence going on today was perpetrated by sunnis and baathists AGAINST the shia that Iran supports.

So you're saying doing this is okay?

Doing what? Backing one side in a struggle in some foreign land with money and guns? I guess so because major western and eastern powers have been doing this for a hundred years.

[Argus]

Until you self-aggrandizing morons start lambasting our Dear Leader for pursuing intimate economic ties with the two biggest dictatorships and patrons of Iran in the universe, maggots will gag.

China is most unlikely to hand a nuke or fissionable material to a terrorist group to blow up New York or London. I can't say the same about Iran.

See the difference, genius?

[dre]

The sane people in the world. Ie, Europe and the US.

I'm willing to be you make no apologies for Christian religious freaks. But when it comes to Muslim ones you're nothing but an apologist. Probably because they're brown people.

Iran has funneled weapons into the hands of terrorists for decades. I see nothing to indicate they wouldn't try to put fissionables into the hands of others to explode in Tel Aviv or New York or London. I'm not saying that's a certainty by any means, but it's certainly a possibility. And not one I'm willing to countenance.

I'm willing to be you make no apologies for Christian religious freaks. But when it comes to Muslim ones you're nothing but an apologist. Probably because they're brown people.

Im not apologizing for anything. Im not actually a big fan of Iran... I dont like theocratic government, and I dont like backwards policies like capital punishment, and so on. Im simply pointing out that you have some pretty strong opinions for someone that clearly hasnt even spent 15 minutes reading about the country, and most of the crap you are spouting isnt supported by any evidence.

I see nothing to indicate they wouldn't try to put fissionables into the hands of others to explode in Tel Aviv or New York or London.

I dont see any evidence that indicates you wouldnt have intercourse with a 300 lb yorkshire sow either... Doesnt mean youre going to do it.

The "terrorist with nukes" narrative is pure fantasy btw. Almost as believable as Colon Powells speech about how Iraq had a vast WMD military industrial complex.... driving around in the back of trucks to avoid detection

Iran has had a nuclear program for about 30 years. Ever since they were the victim of brutal western backed invasions in which chemical weapons were used to massacre Iranian civilians. By far the most plausible scenario is that IF Iran is seeking nuclear weapons it wants them for the same reason other countries want them. A deterrent to aggression.

So no... I dont buy your story that Iran has run a nuclear program for 30 years, and dumped zillions of dollars into it... so that it can build a bomb to give to terrorists. Its nice conspiracy theory but its just not plausible.

Edited September 12, 2012 by dre

[dre]

China is most unlikely to hand a nuke or fissionable material to a terrorist group to blow up New York or London. I can't say the same about Iran.

See the difference, genius?

You absolutely can say the same thing about Iran. Giving a nuclear device to terrorists would be suicide every bit as much as Iran using it itself. Its just pure silliness. A realistic comparison would be pakistan. Another Islamic nuclear state, with a long history of arming the Taliban. Its one thing providing support for terrorists but giving them the output of a massive industrial complex that consumes a significant part of a countries GDP is just something either Iran or Pakistan is going to do.

[eyeball]

China is most unlikely to hand a nuke or fissionable material to a terrorist group to blow up New York or London. I can't say the same about Iran.

See the difference, genius?

First you show me the difference between this,

I haven't seen a single poster on the left here express an iota of doubt that Iran is a peace loving country that wants nothing to do with nukes.

...and what I said.

Make no mistake, we should have nothing at all to do with dictatorships and tyranny.

Can you spot the difference between your hero Harper's position and mine? Here's a clue, nothing means nothing, at all.

[eyeball]

Iran has funneled weapons into the hands of terrorists for decades.

And who's been funnelling arms to Iran for decades?

[GostHacked]

And who's been funnelling arms to Iran for decades?

Don't you go bringing any logic or facts into this conversation.

[Wild Bill]

None of those institutions have taken that position. They dont want any more countries with nukes, and they want to make sure Iran isnt building them because its illegal. Thats not the same thing is believing Iran would immediately use them to commit suicide if it DID build one.

I don't see how Iran using nukes automatically means they commit suicide, Dr. Dre. Sez who?

If they used a terrorist group as a proxy, they have plausible deniability. Terrorist groups are not countries. They are "private" interests. How could a country justify retaliating against Iran for SUSPECTING they were behind a terrorist nuke?

However, let's assume for the sake of argument that Iran steps up and lobs some nukes at Israel. They have the missiles so the distance between is very short. No one would have time to react defensively. BOOM! Bye bye little Israel.

Now what? The world has a fait accompli. Israel is gone, so she can't retaliate, unless she happens to have some submarines with nukes hiding under the water.

Would the world accept the US or any other country nuking Iran? Killing perhaps millions of its citizens? Remember, Iran is not really a representative democracy. It is more of a religious dictatorship. Would it be acceptable to kill citizens who had no say and thus no input into the decision to destroy Israel?

No, a retaliatory strike from any other country but Israel itself is not likely. A regime change being forced on Iran would be a certainty but would the mullahs care? From their POV, they would have accomplished their goal of wiping Israel from the face of the earth. These folks tend to take the long view. They themselves might lose power but their religion would still have a strong influence. Some other religious government would likely arise with different faces but the same values and goals. It might take a few decades but hey, they would likely think it worth the wait.

I would like to hear your reasons to believe that Iran would automatically be committing suicide. It just doesn't seem so to me but perhaps I'm missing something.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Michael Hardner]

How could a country justify retaliating against Iran for SUSPECTING they were behind a terrorist nuke?

You mean, like Iraq and the phantom WMD ?

[Wild Bill]

You mean, like Iraq and the phantom WMD ?

Apples and oranges, Michael. We're talking a NUCLEAR retaliatory attack! No country has launched a nuclear weapon in anger since WWII.

To do so would be a HUGE step! I just don't see how it could happen. Israel's allies would mourn but I just don't see them nuking Iran afterwards.

[Signals.Cpl]

Apples and oranges, Michael. We're talking a NUCLEAR retaliatory attack! No country has launched a nuclear weapon in anger since WWII.

To do so would be a HUGE step! I just don't see how it could happen. Israel's allies would mourn but I just don't see them nuking Iran afterwards.

You don't think that Israel has thought of that already?I suspect they have retaliation plans ready.

[Wild Bill]

You don't think that Israel has thought of that already?I suspect they have retaliation plans ready.

I agree. The Israelis are not fools. Perhaps they have those submarines I mentioned.

Still, revenge wouldn't bring their people back. Much better to somehow make sure Iran CAN'T nuke anybody!

I would imagine a lot of the neighbouring Arab countries are not comfortable with Iran having the Bomb. It's guaranteed Iran would use it to make itself the most important country in the region. Even the Saudis would have to defer to a nuclear armed Iran.

I doubt if they would like that idea much.

[GostHacked]

I agree. The Israelis are not fools. Perhaps they have those submarines I mentioned.

Still, revenge wouldn't bring their people back. Much better to somehow make sure Iran CAN'T nuke anybody!

I would imagine a lot of the neighbouring Arab countries are not comfortable with Iran having the Bomb. It's guaranteed Iran would use it to make itself the most important country in the region. Even the Saudis would have to defer to a nuclear armed Iran.

I doubt if they would like that idea much.

Ah you are referring to the Dolphin class subs that Germany sold them recently, correct? Those ones are suspected of being nuke ready.

[Wild Bill]

Ah you are referring to the Dolphin class subs that Germany sold them recently, correct? Those ones are suspected of being nuke ready.

Then there's hope! Back to the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario!

That might prevent Iran using nukes, unless they are truly religious whackos...

[wyly]

Shake your head a little harder.

I support closing embassies and expelling diplomats in every country that is friendly towards dictators of any and all stripes.

that would close a lot of embassies...

Canada should be deeply ashamed at the spectacle of Harper wheeling and dealing with the likes of China and Russia on this of all days.

but china is a huge trade target so the harper regime overlooks china's human rights abuses...a better move would be to close the embassy in Israel...by keeping it open canada is saying we condone of apartheid and state terrorism that israel exports, by keeping it open canada enables israel's criminal behaviour ...

[Bonam]

Then there's hope! Back to the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario!

That might prevent Iran using nukes, unless they are truly religious whackos...

Besides subs, I'm sure Israel also has hardened missile silos out in the middle of the desert somewhere, in unknown locations, far from where any Iranian nuke would be likely to strike. Furthermore, missile flight time from Iran to Israel is at the minimum about 12 minutes, enough time for Israel to have a chance to detect and retaliate prior to the missile's arrival. However, it seems doubtful that Israel has enough nukes ready to launch to eradicate Iran completely, since Iran has a large land area and dozens of cities scattered around it. So it would not be a true mutually assured destruction scenario.

[GostHacked]

Then there's hope! Back to the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario!

That might prevent Iran using nukes, unless they are truly religious whackos...

It's suicide for Iran if they lob a nuke. And for those who cannot understand why it's suicide, once Iran lobs ONE nuke, they are turned to glass. They know their actions will prompt swift total retaliation. Suicide.

[GostHacked]

Besides subs, I'm sure Israel also has hardened missile silos out in the middle of the desert somewhere, in unknown locations, far from where any Iranian nuke would be likely to strike. Furthermore, missile flight time from Iran to Israel is at the minimum about 12 minutes, enough time for Israel to have a chance to detect and retaliate prior to the missile's arrival. However, it seems doubtful that Israel has enough nukes ready to launch to eradicate Iran completely, since Iran has a large land area and dozens of cities scattered around it. So it would not be a true mutually assured destruction scenario.

I remember a time on this board where people would not even entertain the idea that Israel has nukes.

[PIK]

It's suicide for Iran if they lob a nuke. And for those who cannot understand why it's suicide, once Iran lobs ONE nuke, they are turned to glass. They know their actions will prompt swift total retaliation. Suicide.

And the button being pushed by hard line religous fanatics, who believe death will elevate them, in their sick little world.

[eyeball]

And the button being pushed by hard line religous fanatics, who believe death will elevate them, in their sick little world.

What about our religious fanatics pushing Iran into pushing it's button to trigger Armageddon, and rapture our side into our sick little Heaven?

[Signals.Cpl]

I agree. The Israelis are not fools. Perhaps they have those submarines I mentioned.

Still, revenge wouldn't bring their people back. Much better to somehow make sure Iran CAN'T nuke anybody!

I would imagine a lot of the neighbouring Arab countries are not comfortable with Iran having the Bomb. It's guaranteed Iran would use it to make itself the most important country in the region. Even the Saudis would have to defer to a nuclear armed Iran.

I doubt if they would like that idea much.

Whatever happens, and whatever the US does they will always be the bad guy 100%. If Iran gets a weapon and decides to nuke Israel they will be blamed for not stopping or preventing it. If the US decides to prevent Iran from getting such a weapon they will be the warmonger who goes after the peaceful and innocent nation of Iran.

[Moonbox]

What about our religious fanatics pushing Iran into pushing it's button to trigger Armageddon, and rapture our side into our sick little Heaven?

We marginalize our religious fanatics. Iran actively supports and promotes them to violence.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Moonbox