Just linked you for blogday! 8)
- By: intempestiva on August 31, 2006

Hoder, you're really wrong here! Nukes does not provide security. Europe got stuffed with that lie during the Cold War. Please learn from other countries' mistakes! In the current geopolitical situation, it can only bring instability, and that may accelerate to a deadly situation for the entire world, but most importantly, it may well kill millions of Iranians. Even if there aren't any current rulers that are mad enough to use them, it may not be that way in near future. As to the US, what the US needs is lowering the tension levels. Bush will be gone in two years now, and if the tension level can go down, the Americans won't accept more wars. All we need is to lower the tension level, and nuclear arms ambitions are certainly the one thing that increases it the most. That said, I think the rhetoric of fear that permeates mainstream media is getting us nowhere. One is lead to believe that IAEA cannot safeguard the reactors, but they can. I think Iran could well pursue nuclear energy, under close inspection by the IAEA. But not arms, that would be a disaster for everyone.
- By: Kjetil Kjernsmo on August 31, 2006

See, Chomsky recently claimed that the US only threatens Iran these days because relations between Iran and many other countries are fine and improving, and they (the US) do not want that and can disrupt it this way, AS LONG AS many believe they are talking serious about a potential attack in the near future BUT that the US would NOT go to war because they know this would be very serious and they only want easy victories (which was their, though clealry mistaken, belief when they went to attack Iraq). Does this seem persuasive to you, and if so, how does it change your view on the matter? Chomsky is often very interesting to listen to, and his dissenting view on this issue was refreshing for me to hear...
- By: esti on August 29, 2006

I'm sorry you've changed your mind, but I can understand why. While I share your concerns, if the ideas is to work for a more peaceful world, no matter how remote that prospect seems at the moment, then this seems counterproductive. Just as I think fears of Iran attacking Israel are alarmist, I also think that concerns that the U.S. will attack Iran are not grounded in the reality.
- By: Lotf Ali on August 29, 2006

Evil totalitarian governments cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. Especially one that sponsors terrorist organizations.
- By: Alan K. Henderson on August 29, 2006

Do you honestly trust this government with nuclear weapons? You couldn't believe for a moment that the nuclear weapons will be used in a rational, strategic manner for the security of Iran. That's why the US & many other nations care so much. That's why the US cares about North Korea as well. These men are not diplomats concerned about the security of their people..they are egotistical & power-hungry and operating in regimes without any system of checks-and-balance.
- By: Cole on August 28, 2006

In reply to Binam: I can't see why you would want to develop Nuclear weapons. Have a look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki; what purpose did that serve? What Iran may want to do, is gain international trust (I'm all for Nuclear power).
- By: Amund on August 27, 2006

I guess I have some problem believing leaders like President Ahmadinjad. For example his remarks within a year are exactly the opposite. Aug 26, IRNA President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad categorically said Iran is not a threat to any state, even the Zionist regime, which is "definitely the enemy of regional countries October 27 2005 00:00 Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, declared that Israel should be “wiped off the map” His remarks, delivered at a conference in Tehran entitled “A World without Zionism” Iran's President also said he encourages students to discuss political issues in his 60 Minutes interview, but I saw film of Iran's repression of political views, including jailing, beating and even killing students. Iran's Nobel Peace Prize winning attorney has been jailed in Iran for advocating civil rights for those students. So, my question is how am I to believe Iran wishes to have nuclear technology fo peaceful purposes? It isn't like Iran is an open society. Minders are assined to visitors to Iran.
- By: RoxieAmerica on August 27, 2006

Tehran will be a nuclear crater within 5 years if they they get the bomb.
- By: Steve on August 27, 2006

If you don't have nuclear weapon, you don't have any negotiation leverage against America. Look at India, Pakistan and North Korea. Iran MUST build nuclear weapon for obvious strategic reasons; if you fail to understand this, well, you are ignorant.
- By: Entourage on August 26, 2006

Who’s the aggressor ? who’s the perpetrator ? Old biblical rule : an eye for an eye, a tooth for an tooth Make a journey to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
- By: dariush kermani on August 25, 2006

"The only conflict anyone has with Iran is due to its nuclear weapons program." thats not true.
- By: shapour on August 25, 2006

I too am a secular Iranian, and hope that Iran has the bomb or builds it soon.
- By: binam on August 25, 2006

To defend itself against what? The only conflict anyone has with Iran is due to its nuclear weapons program. Ergo, Iranian nukes aren't going to deter war, they're going to cause it. There is no way Israel is going to allow a threat of this magnitude, and if the rest of the world has any sense, they won't either. Iran is playing with fire.
- By: Rob on August 25, 2006

From theocratic point of view you are right but as a woman needs independence for her progress, Iran needs DEMOCRACY for same reason.
- By: Rina on August 24, 2006

Are you kiding me? Security from who? I hope you do not think that Isreal has designs on taking over Iran. If they do get a nuke it will only be a matter of months before a general war breaks out in region instigated by Iran, probably through Hezbollah. Why would you want a country who has publicly stated they want to "wipe Isreal off the map" to have these kinds of weapons.
- By: Justin Campbell on August 24, 2006