Skip to main content

View Diary: Congress would okay Obama strikes against Iran, if not Syria (55 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A nuclear armed Iran is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    a direct threat to our allies and US Security. Although many unsavory characters agree with that widely held position, what is the problem with acknowledging that?

    •  for one thing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, Lerianis

      Iran doesn't seem to be interested in having nuclear weapons in the next ten years. They're making reactor fuel plates instead of bombs.

      (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

      by PJEvans on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 07:27:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So Iran launches a nuke (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      METAL TREK, Lerianis, Egalitare

      and gets promptly obliterated with 50x the nukes.  Yeah, I'm sure that's what they want.

      Come on.  If one of the reasons for their developing nuclear power is so they can develop nukes, it's to keep the U.S. from just attacking them any ol' time we choose for whatever reason.  We don't attack the other nuclear powers.  And we hold onto our nuclear weapons because it keeps other countries from attacking us.

      A nuclear-armed Iran isn't a threat to us.  What a nuclear-armed Iran is, is a country that we can't just attack.  Big difference.  Why shouldn't Iranians, who have endured plenty of war, have some semblance of security?  Or is that only allowed for Americans?  We may not like it, but we've managed to survive in a world with a nuclear-armed Russia and China.

      •  Exactly! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The ayatollahs of Iran may be religious zealots but they are NOT stupid. Or suicidal. They know what would happen if they nuked us or Israel. Guys who know WAY more about this than I do, like Scott Ritter, have said as much.

        A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

        by METAL TREK on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:26:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

        that sounds like such a wonderful scenario- especially in the tinderbox of the middle east.  A militant, terror sponsoring theocracy, hell bent to destroy our main ally in the region, with nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong?

        By your logic we should be handing out nukes to any state that wants them.

    •  Because it isn't true in the real world (0+ / 0-)

      A nuclear armed Iran would be no more dangerous than a nuclear armed Pakistan, India, China, North Korea, etc.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site