"Because the US can, in essence, "constrain" Israel from using nukes...." There is some sense in this, of course, S-O; although the list of things the US hasn't managed to "constrain" Israel from doing is a rather long one and growing: it couldn't "constrain" Israel from the cold-blooded murder of American sailors on the USS Liberty, as I recall.
However, to pursue the analogy: Iran's possession of such weapons would "constrain" Israel and vice versa, one imagines.
The USSR and the USA effectively "constrained" each other. NK seems to be doing a bit of constraining" because it might have a warhead or two.
Frankly, I suspect the Zionists and the Mullahs are equally mad and blodthirsty but I advance a MAD doctrine as at least worth considering.

I concur and agree Est.
MAD is and will always be a lessoned that is hopefully learned by those seeking and acquiring nukes.

regards
seekerof

it couldn't "constrain" Israel from the cold-blooded murder of American sailors on the USS Liberty, as I recall.

Yes exactly. Lets not forget that it will be years before the iranians will have the capability to produce long-range ICBMs. Right now, it seems that Israel feels threatened and wants US to bail them out. Sharon's militaryl decisions are quite aggressive, this "intelligence" is probably skewed by Sharon's paranoia.

We shouldn't justify taking out the reactor at this time, there are more pressing issues for the US.

If the UN wants to take out the reactor, fine... but I'd expect that decision to come after North Korea, Russia, and China are stripped of their nukes. Those countries' nuclear arms are much more extreme threats to world peace.

And I think weapons inspectors need to catch a plane to Tel Aviv. Israel stands just as much of a threat to peace in the middle east as does Iran.

We must never forget the bombing of the Liberty.

Originally posted by Bob88
And lets not forget Iran sponsors terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and at the moment Iran is holding top al qaeda figures in custody, possibly ubl's son. (and, I wouldn't don't bin laden himself)

So, Iran's nuclear reactor is used to make a nuke - Iran in turn gives it to Hezbollah to use on Israel, I am sure they'd rather have a nuke to lob over into Israel - those mortars aren't that effective.

Then, finally, we'll see 'death to Israel'.

I'd say bombing that reactor would be a prudent thing to do, myself.

Originally posted by Bob88
And lets not forget Iran sponsors terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and at the moment Iran is holding top al qaeda figures in custody, possibly ubl's son. (and, I wouldn't don't bin laden himself)

So, Iran's nuclear reactor is used to make a nuke - Iran in turn gives it to Hezbollah to use on Israel, I am sure they'd rather have a nuke to lob over into Israel - those mortars aren't that effective.

Then, finally, we'll see 'death to Israel'.

I'd say bombing that reactor would be a prudent thing to do, myself.

Hmm, let's see here.


- USA hasn't cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (which is a useless agency anyway as they did nothing to stop N.K.)

-USA has missile technology that can hit any target.

-USA is ruled by ''lobbies''..........


I don't see why Us should take that job. They are quite busy right now, isn't !

It is quite strange to talk like; Just bomb the Mother.......
or Blow that reactor.

You accept to bomb others. So, You might agree to be bombed yourself later.

Iranian rulers make speaches against Israel. ''Death to Israel'' etc.....

It is like Hulk Hogan Vs Jesse Ventura.

Remember IRANGATE ?

Isn't From Israel that weapons camed in Iran, during their war with Iraq.

Iran has close ties with Turkey, they are both non-arabic countries. Turkey is Israelis best friend in the region.

These folks might be better friend than they presented to be ?

What about Dimona ?

Some might say, Compromissing markets with 1 Billions arabic-muslims for support of Israel, is a at least strange policy.

Stability comes with partnership or by force. USA choose the second option, wich results is never fully garanteed.

Good Find Cold Anger this story is true there is the possibilty this may take place with in the next two weeks.

falcon, that's the first time i have ever seen anyone objectively claim a story to be true noting that the subject has not occured yet. incredible...

[Edited on 8-24-2003 by Djarums]