I did a rough counting once. If you go from U.S.A westward, you will count six nations with nukes before you reach Iran; if you go from U.S.A eastward, you will count six nations with nukes before you reach Iran. If nukes are that horrible, should U.S.A take care those nations first before Iran? Elites in West are fooling the public.
People who say this have no redeeming value enough make up for their stupidity if they really believe this and are as bad as the evil they purport to condemn. What would make them redeeming? Being "Christian" and invading a sovereign nation and killing 80,000 of it's civilians? Like the US did with Iraq? Oh but that was all-right because those people were born into a Muslim society. They are the other tribe. "I think we should use nukes to kill every man, woman and child in the country. I want those in the Middle east to fear us. Nothing else matters. It is cultural ... it is all they understand."
I'm not a religious man but they can believe in whatever God they like. We (the West) clearly set up straw bosses to assure that the populace of these nations would stay docile. You can argue that was despicable for us to do and for us to participate in their enslavement and I would have a hard time defending our policies. That type of behavior does come home to roost. We could have and should have done more to help the people of the region and to discourage the ongoing piggish behavior of their rulers. That said, at the point that they take to the streets and overthrow those straw bosses -- the Shah in this case -- and replace them they have an obligation to run their affairs in a way that does not endanger the leading empire of the era -- us -- or be prepared to pay the price. They have been a consistent and voracious supporter of terrorists and we have treated them as a thorn -- certainly a damn annoying thorn -- in our side. Our response have been both measured and ineffective. In the many skirmishes they have to an extent held their own at our expense. That is frequently the case in this type of asymmetrical competition between David and Goliath. The giant would rather swat away the gnat 50 times then expend the effort to capture and crush it. But at this point they are seeking a semblance of parity; they clearly have the ambition to arm themselves (and possibly their terrorist bedfellows) with a level of power that is simply unacceptable. I do not want to change their religious beliefs nor do I want to change those beliefs in neighboring countries. I simply want to kill them in the most heartless fashion imaginable and lay their land to waste so that when their neighbors say their evening prayers one of the prime things they pray for is never to be face to face with our Empire's might. I want them to teach their children to fear that and their children's children. I also want the region to reform it's barbaric practices against women and the "low born", to take their trillions from hydrocarbons and invest in local industries, to join the community of nations in a realistic way that values their people and ours. But most of all they MUST remember that they have no monopoly on brutality so that when that fleeting thought strikes them that they can intimidate this mighty Empire they wet their bed because in their heart they know we simply will show no mercy or compassion to those who threaten what we believe. I never want them to forget that if it comes to brutality and terror they are playing Little League and we are the All Star Team. Major league all the way with speed, power and defense.
We are talking about Iran right? The country that hasn't started a war with anyone in hundreds of years? The one that was attacked by Iraq? The one with the world's 15th largest economy and the world-class scientists? But yeah, killing every man woman and child in Iran seems like a logical, measured thing to do.......... to a mentally unbalanced Israel/US chauvinist..