Defending the Truth

I agree with Moonwings.

If the USA has a nuclear program and has shown to cause pre-emptive, non provocted war, why shouldn't Iran be allowed to have a nuclear program???????

It is hypocritical for us to demand anything of the sort...

in other words: IT IS NOT OUR PLACE ANYMORE!!!!!

Thanks again for this beautiful foreign bullying... er I mean policy.

How To Fight Iran? Why not how to create a solution with
Iran to prevent farther conflicts? We should leave Iran alone.
I believe that Iran is just reacting to the situation that's
been created in the Muslim world, and Iran has rights just
like the United States government do.

Common senses will tell a people...don't mess with a poison
snake, but our Government is so full of Chit until it do not
give a damn if the snake do bite, and usually once the snake
is distrubed and attack we want to kill all snakes.

We should have NEVER set up forces in the Middle East.
Its wasn't our business, but we made it our business, and
now we are the ones who is suffering the most.

I am NOT talking about our government suffering. I am
speaking about Citizens who have loveones,Sons,Daughters,
Grandkids,etc,etc,etc in the Middle East. We're the ones
who is suffering.

Yes, but they're not talking about bombing Iran.

Well, anyone who thinks that a country cannot be prevented from developing nuclear weapons in its "national interests" has, of course, automatically excluded that possibility from occuring...even though that possibility, historically speaking, has already occurred.

For example, both Germany and Japan, by means of all-out war, were prevented from developing nuclear weapons in the 1940's.

So, technically speaking, preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if their development is in Iran's national interest, isn't impossible.

Well, Israel certainly sees a nuclear-armed Iran as a credible threat being that Iran's proxies have had no qualms in the past in performing suicide bombings within Israel.

So, why should a suicide bomber who holds a martyr mentality give a damn about "mutual assured destruction?"

And, perhaps the Iranians failed to notice the Kargil War in Kashmir in 1999 whereby nuclear-armed Pakistan invaded nuclear-armed India.

Well, perhaps the world should have continued appeasing Hitler back in the late 1930's. After all, as Hitler claimed, Germany was acting within its...ummm..."rights."

Whether you agree or not, Iran does not have any "right" to have nuclear weapons since Iran is a signatory nation of the NPT. And, if Iran had simply lived up to her obligations stated within that treaty we would most likely not be having this discussion today.

So then, in your mind, the US must be the only nuclear-armed nation among five nuclear-armed, NPT signatory nations who must give up her nuclear weapons simply because her government has "talked about bombing Iran" as a possible response to Iran's nuclear activities?

Is this what you are saying?

WHEN Iraq gets nuclear weapons it will no doubt be the blood shed from the hands of the US and its failed Middle Eastern policies under Bush

I'd like to see ALL nations give up nuclear weapons. It seems pretty hypocritical for one nation to say "it's all right for us to have them, but you can't."

Personally speaking, I too would like to live in a world without nuclear weapons.

But, I'd rather be considered a hypocrite than to live in a far more more dangerous world whereby all nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons since a few nations possess them.

Well then, may I suggest that you extensively read up on this topic rather than just read some "snippets?"

A good place to start would be here:

Iran Watch - tracking Iran's mass destruction weapon capabilities

(This site also has the actual IAEA reports.)

And, how would you define the phrase "conclusive evidence?"

(Mind you, a country doesn't necessarily have to possess an actual and verified nuclear bomb in order for it to be considered as having "nuclear weapons ambitions.")

But, providing covert assistance in developing nuclear weapons isn't the same thing as providing nuclear weapons, now is it?

Care to restate your conclusion?

Would you mind detailing how a country's development of nuclear weapons is a "right?"

Well, since Iran is a signatory nation of the NPT, why can't the US, by means of the UN, tell Iran what to do regarding her nuclear program...especially since Iran has been found in violation of her obligations stated within the NPT?

I mean, if Iran doesn't want to be told what it can and cannot do regarding her nuclear program, then why should she be a signatory nation of the NPT?

And, what real policing power would the UN hold if there aren't penalties for violations of international treaties?

(Evidently, the UN found Iran's hand in the nuclear weapon "cookie jar," so to speak. So, even though Iran is a signatory nation of the NPT, she can do whatever she wants to do since she is a "sovereign" nation? Is this what you are saying?)

Ummm...I think you meant to say "Iran" instead of "Iraq" in your last statement.

So, if or when an Iranian-produced nuclear weapon goes off in Tel Aviv or elsewhere, it would be the US's (or Bush's) fault?

Is this what you are saying?