You don't know what I believe although I'm sure you think you do with your elitist attitude. I'm still waiting for your solution for the Iranian nuke issue, your attempts to hijack this thread notwithstanding.
Let them make nukes, they won't use it anyway like any other countries beside the US never used it either. Game theory, you nuke someone, you get nuked after, so it's not worth it. As long as the missiles stays in the hands of the Iranian government. Attacking Iran, or just sending elite troops to investigate, will only fuel the hatred toward US imperialism and create more terrorists. War in Iraq basicly gave new reasons to terrorist organisations that would otherwise be dead by now if we concentrated war only on Al-Quaeda and Afganistan. All they need is an excuse to wage war against the US. And Bush is handing it to them on a silver plate! No reasons, no war. Nobody attacks Canada, there's no reasons to, we don't piss anybody off. How many terrosits attacks targeted on canadian troops in Afganistan do you hear about? NONE! We mainly lose our soldier because of equipment malfunction We are nice with afagans and play kockey with them and initiate them to the taste of maple syrup. Meanwile US occupation in Iraq is total chaos...
Hey random Cap, even if you really like and trust the mullahs in Iran....what if they are gone the next day in a coup/revolution and they are replaced by new militant religious fanatics, the military, or any other group.....do you then trust who you now do not know? This is exactly why the U.S. has secured all of Pakistan's nuclear weaponry.
I'm not saying I disagree with your approach but I think your premise about nuke retaliation begs a question : when a suitcase nuke is detonated in downtown DC, NYC or LA what country are you going to nuke to retaliate? Assume Al Qaeda takes responsibility (credit) for the attack. How much proof would be required that Iran supplied the nuke to justify nuking Iran and would that proof ever be sufficient to convince anti-US folks throughout the world? I also question whether the game theory that has prevented nuke use up until this point will continue to work with certain groups that have proven they are willing to die to fight for a religious cause they believe in. Again, I'm not saying that your idea of just letting them make nukes isnt the right one but I do think that the idea that we can have dozens of countries in the world (including ones with less stables govts) with nukes and not end up with some nukes going off seems a bit strange. Frankly the worst scenario, which I'm amazed we haven't seen yet, is a terrorist group threatening to detonate a nuke that they claim is already deployed in a US city unless certain demands are met. And then they do. After that the US is pretty much finished in terms of world power.
I encourage everyone on this thread to research the history of wahabissm. Enter this on a google search. It is impossible to fully understand the "war-on-terror" without understanding the history of this virulent form of islam. An overwhelming majority of Saudi Arabian citizens subscribe to this hate-filled religous belief. A major tenet of wahabissm is the death of all non-believers of wahabisst islam-including muslims of different denominations. This sect of islam was first propigated by the imam cleric wahabi in the seventeenth century-over three hundread years ago. To infer that we in the west are somehow to blame for the islamic jihad against us is like blaming the jews for the holocoust. In fact, the jihad against the west began over three hundread years ago. Bear in mind also, this is not just a jihad against the west exclusively-as wahabisst also seek to distroy Hindus, Shintos and practilly all other beliefs other than wahabissm. This is truly a world war that will only get worse in the comming years. I sincerely believe that our survival as a people is clearly at stake. Once Jihadist obtain an A- bomb they will surely use it on a western city. There have been recent fatwa's issued to this effect. Then what?
I never said any such thing. I said Iran with nukes would be a stabilizing influence in the region. People who obtain power like to keep power, and the first step in securing longevity is getting your own house settled. I don't doubt for a moment they would be closer to the Pinochet end of the "Life is Fun" spectrum, and I would have no desire whatsoever to live in such a regime, but it would be stabilizing, as was the US-supported Pinochet horror show. That is complete nonsense.