News Will Mr. Bush Attack Iran? - Ardian's Opinion

[SOS2008]

...it is not evident that an Iranian Ayatollah-directed Islamic Republic of Iraq is what the US imagines as the best ally against Iran.

Yes, I agree. What I was trying to say is that the Bush administration propaganda machine is not to be underestimated -- i.e., they are now saying they would accept an Islamic government in Iraq. And perhaps Bush would support an Islamic government if it is an ally--which is what was wanted from regime change. Saudi Arabia is not the model of democracy, but because they are an ally... There is a list of non-democratic countries, including those with "ruthless" dictators like Saddam that the U.S. has supported--not so long ago the Shah of Iran. Your point that Sistani may not be an ally, well now that is something to consider.

Thank you for your reply!

 

[pelastration]

The actual 'Iran' issue is that the West fears nuclear weapons in Iran hands. The West uses the Non Proliferation Treaty to forbid Iran to develop such weapons.

But: "The nuclear states have tried to contain the spread of nuclear weapons by a range of technical, political and legal means, mostly under the framework of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the failure of the nuclear states to implement their obligations under Article VI of the NPT to eliminate nuclear weapons threatens this. Mexico, for example, told the International Court of Justice in November 1995 that if the nuclear states did not meet their commitments to disarm within a reasonable timeframe " we would need to revise our continuation as party to the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." (Sergio Gonzalez Galvez, Undersecretary of Foreign Relations for Mexico. Presentation to the International Court of Justice, November 3, 1995.)"
http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/A%20bomb%20in%20search.htm

OK, that's maybe old news ... but the majors nuclear powers need also to execute their obligations. Just like Iran must.

 

[the number 42]

I've always found the 'our WMDs good, your WMDs bad' attitude pretty inane, and probably not the best basis for negotiations.

 

[Gokul43201]

But "we" are a stable democracy with checks and balances, while "you" are a crazed dictatorship led by fanatical, religious zealots.

Nothing will cause America to launch a nuke save perhaps...a direct order from God to the President.

 

[the number 42]

But "we" are a stable democracy with checks and balances, while "you" are a crazed dictatorship led by fanatical, religious zealots.

I stand corrected

Nothing will cause America to launch a nuke save perhaps...a direct order from God to the President.

You mean God and Junior aren't one & the same?