[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I agree. I think Iran has every right to defend itself with whatever weapons it wants, especially when rogue countries like the US are going around illegally invading and occupying sovereign nations in the Middle East. I don’t see where the US gets off thinking it has any authority to decide what kinds of weapons anyone else should be allowed to have. Frankly, I think the better armed Iran is, the better. The US needs to be put in check.
[/QUOTE]
We never had authority, but at least we used to have leverage.
Now, though, the Iraqi milking machine has our dick and it ain’t gonna give up until it gets fifty gallons, if you know what I mean.
Anwyays, the US is in check. And we put ourselves in there willingly. Well, 50% willingly.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Anyone who supports the Iranian nuclear program on the grounds that George Bush is against the Iranian nuclear program is a fucking idiot.
[/QUOTE]
Have ye found any of those strawmen yet, or this another case of Iraqi WMD’s?
Given the admin’s propensity for lying about stuff, anyone who decries Iran’s nuclear program just because George Bush is against it, is both a fucking idiot and a gullible fool. There are a great plenty of those in post-9/11 America.
This is Realpolitik, right? I mean every country is probably acting in it’sown best interest, Iran buying the missiles, Russia selling them, and the US protesting. This is the way of the world and I would hardly Pit any country for acting te way they are. Persoanlly, I would prefer Iran didn’t have the missiles either.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Y’know, just because the Bush administration opposes something doesn’t make it a good thing.
Bush isn’t going to be president forever, and we’ll still have to deal with Iran after he’s gone. Just because Iran’s desire to get nuclear bombs is rational doesn’t mean we shouldn’t oppose it.
Anyone who supports the Iranian nuclear program on the grounds that George Bush is against the Iranian nuclear program is a fucking idiot.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll second Squink’s strawman comment, thankyewverymuch.
I remember the moment that abolished any doubt of whether I wanted John Kerry as my President for this term. The question in the third debate was something along the lines of, “What do you regard as the biggest threat in the world today?” and Kerry unhesitatingly said, “Nuclear proliferation.” Didn’t even pause to think.
The dishonesty of the Bush crew in dealing with Iran hasn’t made the problem any easier to deal with. Maybe there’s a decent deal to be made with them, maybe not. But the Bushies and the media natterers in their pocket have been doing their best to muddy the waters and reduce the acceptability of a non-military solution. Iraq’s already damaged the proliferation picture in serious ways - if I were the head of a country that the U.S. doesn’t like, the message I’d take away from Iraq is that I need a nuke and a medium-range missile.
If Tor-M1 SAMs will give Iran that same feeling of security, without creating the same potential threat to the world, then I’m all for it. But I suspect that the only resolution is some sort of bargain where we provide security guarantees for Iran in return for their guaranteeing permanent inspection rights so we know they’re not enriching uranium beyond the 5% level needed for nuclear power. Only we can give the necessary security guarantees, so talks that we’re not a part of are meaningless.
Might be nice if we and the Russians reduced our arsenals somewhat too - perhaps even as part of the same deal. Each of the two nuclear superpowers has about 5800 active nukes, and the rest of the world (UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, NK) has maybe 1200 combined. There’s no need of having that many warheads lying around anymore.