Iran with nuclear weapons-Is it safe?

[Officer Dibble]

"despite me being a shameless Guardian reading ponce."

Jeez, Bruce. How could you? Well, I guess we all have our foibles and hey, that adds a bit of spice and diversity, makes life interesting. The important thing is that you are (unlike some) reasonable and rational, open to argument and debate. You obviously haven?t simply subscribed to a set immutable values and beliefs like middleclass people do when joining some loony sect, political party or religion. I therefore respect your choice of broadsheet - you clearly have your reasons. Happy reading.


Officer Dibble

[Boutros Ghali]

what abunch of wimps ! I remember some story from school about this austrian bloke, he was a painter I think, anyway he built these factories with special ovens and put lots of people in them whom he didnt like and burned em up, I mean if you are going to consider nuking people whats the difference? and if they have hated us for centuries what would it matter.

killing and hating is something that fits so comfortably with Human Beings that we would be lost without them.

so lets build those ovens and started packing them in...whats it matter, lets kill all of them before they kill us.

[philylad13]

In regards to Jimslips point, if any country that has Nukes was attacked, I would imagine they would be used, that's why I knew Iraq didn't have WMD, because if they did, we would have been blown to pieces in 45 Minutes, lol.

Just wondering why anyone seems to take notice of what our politicians are saying on the subject, especially after the lies regarding Iraq, e.g. dodgy dossiers, 45 Mins, freedom. Nobody knowing that the UK, USA, Russia & France loved Saddam in the 80s and armed him.

Quite interesting though that we bombed Iraq because he may have Chemical weapons and yet the US used them during the campaign, and people seem to take seriously a word that they say.

If they Iranians want Nuclear power, so what, just keep an eye on them to make sure they are not turned into Nukes, would be a sensible idea, maybe if the Governments of the US, UK & Israel didn't have Nukes, or planned to scale-down their nuclear arsenal, they may have the right to act like the Moral Guardians of soceity.

In regards to a couple of previous comments, if it would be alright for Israel to bomb Iran, to set-back their Nuclear programs by 20 years, why wouldn't it be alright for Iran to bomb Israel because they have Nukes? Just a question, either you would support both or be against both, I'm against both personally, there is nobody that supports both, I don't think.

Time for the insults of being either middle-class, a Guardian reader or a member of Al-Qaeda, lol.

Final hypothetical question, would anybody support a US invasion against the UK, because we have Nukes? It's not really a question is it, but when it is against a country in the Middle-East this is taken seriously!

[Bruce Barnard]

"if it would be alright for Israel to bomb Iran, to set-back their Nuclear programs by 20 years, why wouldn't it be alright for Iran to bomb Israel"

Iran will if they get the chance.

That's the point.

Israel however don't vocalise that their neighbours must be destroyed.

That's the difference.

[Officer Dibble]

"that's why I knew Iraq didn't have WMD,"

Well, we all knew the Iraqis didn't have WMD ? that is after our chaps had spent a while rummaging round in their metaphorical cupboards. Even the politicians seemed a bit surprised. But maybe we were giving to much credit to the Iraqis? I mean, when it comes to matters of technical and organisational competency they're just not in our ballpark, are they? We know best.


"Just wondering why anyone seems to take notice of what our politicians are saying on the subject, especially after the lies regarding Iraq, e.g. dodgy dossiers, 45 Mins, freedom."

Er, well, maybe it might be because we elected them to run the show on our behalf? I mean it would be bizarre if we said, "Hey, look politicians. We've elected you, but don't think that means we think you are competent to run the show. Don't think that means we will believe a word you say. Don't think that means that we trust your judgement. No, we only elected you because we fancied a walk down to the polling booth, before Eastenders came on, and while we were there we thought - Well, we're here now. So, I guess we might as well stick a random cross on a piece of paper. Yes, that?s the only reason you're in Downing St.?


"Nobody knowing that the UK, USA, Russia & France loved Saddam in the 80s and armed him."

Yes, we all loved Saddam in the 80's. He was our pal then. And, like any good pal would do, we sold him some guns, bombs, and associated shit, when he was in a tight corner. Trust us westerners to look after our pals, hey?

?Quite interesting though that we bombed Iraq because he may have Chemical weapons and yet the US used them during the campaign, and people seem to take seriously a word that they say.?

Semantics. Every high explosive weapon is a chemical weapon - they're all made of chemicals. Some might want to fritter their time away arguing whether phosphors bombs are 'Chemical weapons'. Personally, I don't give a hoot. What I want to know is are they any good at eliminating wild eyed, murdering, insurgents? You know, those divi chappies who go 'Huba, huba, huba' as they shoot off their Kalashnikovs in the street.' If they are, then jobs a good 'un.


"If they Iranians want Nuclear power, so what,"

So what? You haven?t been paying attention, philylad. Iran is a mildly erratic nation in the thrall of mad mullahs and religious fundamentalist loonies. A nation whose leader has brazenly and bizarrely stated that a neighbouring country should be "wiped off the map". Given that a by-product of civil nuclear power is enriched uranium (the stuff of atomic bombs), I think it might be prudent for everyone within missile distance to be at least mildly concerned. Don?t you agree? I mean, irrational, mad eyed, religious nutters, plus atomic bombs, is normally considered a heady brew.


?If the Governments of the US, UK & Israel didn't have Nukes, or planned to scale-down their nuclear arsenal, they may have the right to act like the Moral Guardians of soceity.?

We already have the right. Indeed, being rational, mature, westerners, we have a responsibility to protect the planet from those would might not be as responsible, mature or competent as us groovy people. Someone has to take charge, someone has to give a lead, someone has to show direction or else there will be chaos on the plant. In the absence of any other peoples being as capable or as qualified as us (for the time being) that responsibility falls to us. We cannot walk by on the other side of the road. Indeed the road is getting narrower by the day. If some people feel aggrieved because they are not up to it and we are, then tough shit.


?In regards to a couple of previous comments, if it would be alright for Israel to bomb Iran, to set-back their Nuclear programs by 20 years, why wouldn't it be alright for Iran to bomb Israel because they have Nukes??

Because the Israelis are an intelligent, rational, people. They are a westward looking democracy. Have you noticed how we all sleep easily in our beds aware that Israel has nuclear weapons? Why do you think that is? Could it be that we unconsciously recognize these positive Israeli qualities and don?t even consider the possibility that they might unleash them on us in a moment of wild-eyed, backward, religious lunacy? But when you float the idea of Syria or Iran getting the bomb, then immediately we experience a stab of terror through our hearts. Israel + atomic bombs no problem (much like France). Islamic fundamentalists + atomic bombs = start digging the shelters.


?Time for the insults of being either middle-class, a Guardian reader or a member of Al-Quaeda, lol.?

You know my position on these matters.


?Final hypothetical question, would anybody support a US invasion against the UK, because we have Nukes? It's not really a question is it,?

No, it isn?t.


Philylad, if you?re not an agent of Al-Queada, why are you beating yourself up over these issues? There are more pressing and relevant issues to address here in the UK. In fact, I can?t see where you?re going with the whole deal. You suggest that the government is lying ? Gasp! Really? Well I never. I never would have thought it. Listen philylad, the government lies everyday, about everything. That?s the nature of governments. But so long as everything ticks along and there?s bread in the shops and Big Brother is on TV we don?t care all that much.

Look dude, I can see what your problem is ? you?re just not getting enough beaver, and this is your way of crying for help. Nil desperandum, philiylad! Officer Dibble is here to offer help, advice, and a shoulder to cry on. He?s a well groovy geezer and he?s got the job sorted.

Here?s what you do. First thing tomorrow morning go out and treat yourself to a 12-month 1st class membership of ?Madame Minge?s House of ill Repute?. There?s bound to be a franchised outlet near you (provided you?re not typing at us from Tehran, that is! Lol!). Then, tomorrow evening, resplendent in your best bib and tucker, you hoof it down there and resolutely stride across the threshold. You then proceed smartly up the attractive young receptionist and discreetly announce that Officer Dibble has sent you (a knowing, conspiratorial, wink might not go amiss at this juncture). Then, after the young lady has checked you in and enquired as to your pleasure I recommend you order ?Tina Tit?s Smoked Beef Special?. I?ve found that it always his the spot and I guarantee you?ll walk out of that establishment ?a new man?, all middleclass pretensions washed away. You wont give two hoots about the Iraqis (just like everyone else) and instead you?ll start to live again - maybe treat yourself to an expensive new sports car? Or a well earned break at some exotic, pussy packed, paradise? In short, you?ll feel like a normal geezer again and all that awful angst and pretentious hand wringing will seem like a horrid dream. Take my word.


Officer Dibble

[diplodocus]

lol, Dibs, why are you still awake at this time, have you got my disease

we should be in bed

[jimslip]

I think if hard line Zionist zeolots were in charge of Israel, the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons against Palestine would be a possibility. Certainly a well placed Neutron bomb over the right target would solve Israel's problems once and for all.

They could annexe all the territory they believe to be theirs and no one would retaliate for fear of being "Anti-Semetic". The Zionists could then implement their "Final Solution".

The problem in the Middle East is mad, crazed, religious zeolots of all pursuations.

Anyone know why strong religious belief always seem to mean death to all others who are not of the same belief. Surely all the teachings preach "Love"?

[jimslip]

An interesting read, if you've got time.