No Translation Required - the Iranian Threat

We can't let a bunch of religious fanatics get a nuclear weapon.

Oh wait, we already did.



Just so you know, Iran hasn't aggressed against another nation in over 150 years. (And there is zero evidence they have the capability to build a nuclear weapon. If that statement isn't true then please demonstrate so.)

Even US Intelligence admits (2007):
G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015. (source)

On the other hand, US UK and Israel...well that's different though isn't it. We were justified. One rule for us and another rule for everyone else? This kind of 'world police' supremacism has to end; it's killing our reputations and our prosperity. And our soldiers.

It's official policy to not ask Israel whether they have nukes...but it's 'common sense' to talk about attacking Iran because they might - possibly - be capable of - having the potential to - build nukes and if they do they might- possibly - despite no historical precedent - despite MAD being proven to work during the Cold War - choose to try and use those hypothetical weapons.

And on that basis you want to initiate force against a third sovereign nation in a decade? Insanity! Foolhardiness! Treachery! But that's the norm in the 'post-9/11' world. Well, this isn't the post-9/11 fantasy world, it's the real world. Kim-Jong Il doesn't use his nukes. Wanna know why? Because he knows he will be vaporised if he does. Mutually. Assured. Destruction.

It's the same principle of individual mutually assured destruction that makes an armed society a polite society. Criminals pick on disarmed people. Criminal governments invade non-nuclear nations only, for exactly the same psychological reasons. I'm not necessarily saying nuclear weapons are good any more than I'm saying guns are good; but look at what the latter does to crime and the former does to war. Prevents it.

But do you not notice how real the threat is? I know, I just don't understand, even if Iran basically has zero nuclear weapon capability, they're building a bomb. It's the truthiness, honest.

So this would be a good point to admit that fear controls us. It does. If we allow the media and the interests that own the media to trick the people into believing Iran is a 'real and present danger' (while the real danger to the people is the criminals in charge of US-UK-EU who are currently destroying our respective sovereignty and economies) then great, let's all have a good old war. Although that REALLY would be another Vietnam, maybe even WW3. Really, with a draft and everything.

Strikes on Iran? Be careful what you wish for. Pandora's Box can't be closed once opened.

You might not like it so much when the draft carts your sorry backside off to pull on a uniform and board a ship to the Persian Gulf. But I was a good conservative talk show listener! I was 'patriotic'! Can't you just draft the poor black kids like in Vietnam?
________________________________________________________________

At this point I am compelled to write a short addendum to ensure I don't offend any military personnel, because that's the furthest thing away from what I wanted to do. I believe that the best way to decide whether a war is necessary or justifiable is to let the troops decide for themselves whether to commit, perhaps by vote or some such way. My admittedly caustic remarks are reserved for the chickenhawks who want to 'do something about Iran' as long as they or theirs are not in the firing line. Who 'support the troops' by constantly demanding they risk their lives in situations that do not relate to real national security. I have no military background or connections, which is one of the biggest reasons why I don't support wars of aggression; I don't believe in asking others to kill and be killed for me, no matter how 'urgent' the media tells me the situation is. Hope that makes it clear.