posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:14 AM
The world doesn't need to prove that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons. Iran needs to demonstrate that its nuclear program is for peaceful
uses only. If they fail to do that, then there is good reason to attack Iran in order to destroy its nuclear program.
The notion that Iran intends to use nukes for only peaceful purposes is a stretch, to say the least. Iran has enormous oil reserves, ranking (IIRC)
fifth in the world. There is no need for Iran to develop nuclear power, since they have such an abundance of petroleum.
As they work on their "peaceful" nuclear program, did you notice that they've also been testing missiles? Do you believe that's just a
coincidence, that Iran has peaceful intents but just happens to also want to see how well its missiles work? Think again if you believe that.
In the meantime, Iran has expressed its intent to annihilate Israel, as well as any other "enemies" that Iran may encounter. Such enemies would
likely include the US among many other countries. This is not the language of a peaceful, law-abiding citizen of the world.
Imagine that I say that someone I know should be wiped off the earth. Imagine that I begin to accumulate explosives - just TNT, say. Is it up to the
authorities to prove that I intend to kill that person, or would it be reasonable for them to require that I demonstrate I have peaceful intentions?
I expect that until I could show the authorities that I had a good, peaceful use for the explosives, they'd insist that I not acquire them. If I
ignored them, they'd come and take them away from me.
Iran is not just some country that decided it needs nuclear energy. Iran has expressed an aggressive and violent intention. It has supplied
terrorist organizations with missiles and other weapons. It has already shown itself to be bellicose and deceitful. Now you think everyone is going
to say, "Oh, OK, if you cross your heart and hope to die that your intentions are peaceful, then I guess it's OK for you to have nukes". I don't
War sucks. What sucks worse is trying to avoid war by allowing a rogue nation to blackmail the world. That's called "appeasement", and it
"Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian." - Heywood Broun
"You may gain temporary appeasement by a policy of concession to violence, but you do not gain lasting peace that way." - Anthony Eden
The problem with knuckling under to terrorists or countries that support terrorism is that eventually they will make demands that cannot be met. They
will continue to take until it is impossible to give - at which time the war that people were trying to avoid becomes inevitable.
A firm "no" in the beginning can often stop this process. When Iraq was developing nuclear weapons capability, the world sat on its butt and looked
on. Israel had the guts to make a surgical strike on the facility, destroying Iraq's nuclear project with minimal loss of life. The world roundly
condemned Israel for the strike, though they should have been eternally grateful that someone had the cojones to take action. Iraq with nukes was a
very bad idea. Iran with nukes isn't any better.
I don't espouse wars if they can be avoided. Unfortunately, sometimes they are necessary. Refusing to fight when necessary leads to being forced to
fight when it is unavoidable. By then the situation has usually deteriorated to the point where the fighting is fierce and protracted. Waiting until
Iran has nukes isn't a good time to tell it not to develop nuclear weapons. If you wait that long, they'll use them on you.