“Once they have a bomb, that kind of ends the discussion on whether they should be stopped militarily…”

I interpreted that, perhaps mistakenly, as “if they get a bomb, then the time for diplomacy is done and military action should be taken.”

If military action is taken, I am very sure that civilians will die as a result. I really don’t want to see that happen.

What are the laws in the U.S.? If you feel threatened by someone (even if you make shit up on your head about them), you get to kill them and their families, and do it all over again and again with others? ‘Cause otherwise would be too much of a risk?

Is “not being a sociopathic murderer scared shitless” just for “peace gaytards who live in Unicornland” now?

It defies comparison to something as simple as one person thinking one other person might want to kill them, and the straw man of saying we’re going to bomb the civilians of a country simply because we have a mild inkling they might not like us is a bit insulting, as debait tactics go.

He really is an anti-semite fart, though. But that’s another story, and really irrelevant to what the rest of the facts are (specially considering the guy is just a puppet).

It’s really unbelievable the degree in which americans are made to clench their sphincters when it comes to Iran (remember the GOP convention 9-11 video this year that starts with “it started in Iran…”, and shows Lord Saviour Reagan or some other homoerotic macho-homophobe bullshit about warriors blahblah).

Without preconditions.

Homer: That Timmy is a real hero!
Lisa: How do you mean, Dad?
Homer: Well, he fell down a well, and… he can’t get out.
Lisa: How does that make him a hero?
Homer: Well, that’s more than you did!

If there is no way other of determining the truth (such as espionage) before they actually fire a missile, whether for testing purposes or attack purposes…then yes.

I have a question for you now. If you suspected somebody of plotting a murder, what would be your test for determining whether they were really preparing to kill somebody?

I will be interested in the answer you give. Whether you say that the right thing is to just keep an eye on them and wait until they do something wrong…or that the right thing is to go all “Minority Report” and lock them up just to be on the safe side. Or if you give some other answer.

Once they have a bomb, that kind of ends the discussion on whether they should be stopped militarily

Let’s say that they actually get a bomb, and everybody knows it. Is that in itself a reason to declare war on them?

If merely possessing nuclear weapons makes you a bad guy, then you’d have to attack a whole lot of other countries once you finished attacking Iran. You might even have to attack yourself.

I’ll compare this to a hypothetical situation involving individual people, again. Let’s say I see you buying a handgun. Shoud I immediately say to myself “ZOMG! 10FootBongz is going to commit murder!” Of course not.

Personally, I favour the Obama approach of trying to solve this issue diplomatically, but advocating a ‘wait and see’ approach to the situation, in light of all of the statements and actions of the Iranian president, is extremely reckless considering the number of lives at stake.

In other words, we can’t wait for a smoking gun because it might be a mushroom cloud, right? Are you aware of who else said that? Are you aware that he was dead wrong?

I would rather risk a mushroom cloud than see the United States (or any other nation for that matter) attack another country unprovoked, kill many civilians (as they inevitably would even if they weren’t trying), and later find out that the country they attacked had no murderous intentions.

I was hanging out with my girlfriend, she was making me draw for her, and, while flipping the channel, she saw the presidential debate, and said “let’s watch it!”.

Me? I’m liberal/democrat/whatever, she’s conservative/republican/whatever. So of course we differ on the subject of who should be president.

She had to change the channel, because she saw how ANGRY I was getting with McCain. Mainly when he kept saying stuff about Obama that he DIDN’T say, like the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thing. Even AFTER Obama pointed out that Ahmadinejad wasn’t the most powerful person in Iran, MCCAIN STILL FLAILED HIS ARMS AROUND saying “You want to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! You’ll legitimize him! He hates the Jews!” no matter how often Obama pointed out that he wasn’t even talking about meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

Also, the new thing to do these days is to give presidential candidates bracelets that your dead soldier son used to wear.

And I think the reason McCain was so pissed was because he had to be up there with a black guy.

The Director General also updated Board members on the status of verification of Iran´s nuclear programme. “The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Regrettably, the Agency has not been able to make substantive progress on the alleged studies and associated questions relevant to possible military dimensions to Iran´s nuclear programme. These remain of serious concern,” he said. He then called on Iran to “show full transparency and to implement all measures required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme at the earliest possible date.” (the link is: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/board220908.html)

Obviously, the US totally cocked up the works in Iraq, invading when all credible investigations claimed that Saddam did not have WMDs. That does not mean that the international community should just wait for Iran to prove that they have nuclear weapons. Once they have a bomb, that kind of ends the discussion on whether they should be stopped militarily (see, for example, North Korea).

Finally, while Ahmadinejad’s comments might have been mildly mistranslated, keep in mind that he has also claimed that the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated, he has claimed that Zionists are not Jews (using that as an explanation for how he doesn’t hate Jews), and his country is the major patron of two organizations (Hamas and Hezbollah) who have unequivocally stated that they wish to annihilate the state of Israel.

None of this means that the US and A has to bomb Iran to stop them, but it all means that something has to be done to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons. Personally, I favour the Obama approach of trying to solve this issue diplomatically, but advocating a ‘wait and see’ approach to the situation, in light of all of the statements and actions of the Iranian president, is extremely reckless considering the number of lives at stake.

Was he willing to make a deal?