Going back on an early one from Coop, for it being the most comprehensive one i can give my counter-arguments to.

That would be a perfect way to further antagonise the Iranian people. Remember that from the mid-1990s on, Iran was very obviously becoming a far less radical fundamentalist country. Unfortunately, some goon whose country got hit by a terrorist attack from Saudi Arabians suddenly named Iran as one of three countries (Iran, Iraq, North Korea) which should be held responsible for that terrorist attack. Result: the Iranian voters look at their ballot, and elect the candidate who shows the biggest finger to that very same goon.

Somehow, GWB’s diplomacy with a saw-off barrel might work for the home crowd, the rest of the world responds rather different. A bit more restraint from the US in dealing with Iran might very well have prevented Ahmedinejad getting elected.

Yes. You already made that choice when you signed up. It’s not that the US military is an organisation ment for territorial defence. At best it’s an organisation ment to defend US econo-political interests, but i can think of a few descriptions with the word ‘defence’ replaced by something more agressive.

Your assumption.

MAJOR assumption. Or have you held a poll in Iran?

What about having two not entirely stable neighbours having nukes? What about having a not-so-friendly nation, known for it’s aggressive posture, having military facilities on your doorstep? What about millions of religious rivals (Sunni muslems rather than Shia ones) in the neighbourhood?
There are literally dozens of perfectly valid reasons why Iran would want nukes. Not the least of which is that post-WW2 the West has really only taken nuclear powers completely serious on a diplomatic level. The USSR, China and India proved that becoming a nuclear power increased their diplomatic standing tremendously. I’m sure a proud nation like Iran wants that status symbol.

No you can’t, although i don’t think it’s likely either.

True, neither Europe nor Russia nor China are all too keen on a nuclear-armed Iran. But that’s the b!tch of proliferation for you, and it’s been a while since Pandora’s box has been opened. But i’m pretty sure Europe’s reservations are born for a large part out of post-9/11 Islamophobia, and for an equally large part out of general concern about proliferation. Europe wasn’t too happy about Israel, India and Pakistan joining the nuclear club either.

MASSIVE assumption on your behalf. One i personally find as far fetched as the nearest quasar.

Yeah, the Lebanese surely threatened to invade Israel in 1982, right?

Definately true, Ahmedinejad’s ramblings definately have struck a few already overly-tight-strung Israeli nerves (give those people some valium, btw). Fortunately, the role of the president in Iran is far from being a truely powerful person like it is in France or the US. Ahmedinejad is not the center of power in Iran – the role of the Persian president is more comparable to that of his colleagues in Germany or Israel.

There is your assumption again. The fact that you fear something doesn’t make it true, or even likely. I guess you haven’t learned from the ‘missing’ Iraqi WMD’s? On a sidenote, i am willing to claim my prize in our bet from a few years back as downing a case of beers together (you pay), i’ll let you pass on the suicide 😉

Coop, you said you’re having a course in targeting at this moment. Is countervalue targeting part of a future curriculum? It most definately still is a major part of any country’s, and particularly the US’, nuclear doctrine. Civilian targets are targets. Period.

Thinking countries want nuclear weapons in order to use them is a very big misconception, if you ask me. Like any other country (except the one which actually used nuclear weapons, and appearantly learned a bit from that), Iran wants nuclear weapons only to have a bigger d!ck to put on the negotiating table. You’re not kidding me into thinking that for one reason or another, Iranians are going to commit suicide-by-proxy by actually using their nuclear weapons. Of course not.

The second assurance is a fair one, and quite a solid reason for Iran to get nuclear weapons. Especially now one of it’s major self-declared enemies (there is that Axis of Evil-speech again) sits on it’s doorstep. The ‘convenient access to nukes for terrorist organisations’ is nothing but ill-thought paranoia on your behalf.

The dikes were bombed, but water levels weren’t high enough. Repeated bombings were vetoed though.

:dev2: :diablo: :p