IranFollow

Russia building the reactors and supplying the materials and are being payed handsomely for it. They have consistently come down on the side of Iran.

China is using its position on the UN security council to stall any efforts to deal with the issue. They are also selling weapons to Iran for money and oil.

Today India switched sides and sided with Russia/Iran after getting in a little bit of a fuss with the IAEA.

The US screaming bloody murder

the EU trying to calm everyone down.

We are all f[b][/b]ucked.

Edited, Fri Jan 27 14:50:11 2006 by bodhisattva

By "We" he definately means the starving children of Africa.

Right. Excuse me.

Because we can bend you over and fuc[i][/i]k you in the *** without even taking our pants off.

Somehow I doubt Iran will be dropping letters of warning on the desired target too.

About as often as it does through open warfare: rarely if ever.



It's difficult to answer this without going into areas where you have already professed a very happy ignorance. As happiness is a rare commodity, I don't really want to intrude on your worldview..

It is sufficient to say that prolonged, hostile relationships are a way of doing business between nations, particularly when the nations at either end of said relationship have a vested interest in maintaining that hostility. Think of American rhetoric against the USSR during the cold war, then apply similar lessons to the current Iranian government as they sling invectives in our direction. Whipping up a public frenzy over an enemy - particularly one that's usually thousands of miles away, and across a bloody big ocean, to boot - is a good way of instilling some kind of national identity and political fervor in your people. Skip back to Orwell's 1984 and the two-minute hate for further reading.

The problem is when you begin taking active steps to turn your rhetoric into action, such as by building a ballistic missile ******* and working towards creating nuclear material with which to arm them. That changes the political playing field significantly. Everybody understands the point and nature of rhetoric, but putting missiles behind your words makes people edgy. Particularly when your nation is in a rather unstable region of the world, more particularly when you publicly espouse genocide against nearby neighbors and their foreign supporters.

There really aren't many good ways for solving this problem in the long run, aside from letting the ruling powers die of old age and hoping the next generation has better common sense. Nobody likes it when we do things through diplomatic means (much criticism of the Cold War with Russia) and nobody likes it when we take an active approach (the current administration's policy of regime change, which ousted Hussain in Iraq and which has tied up many thousands of our soldiers over the past couple of years). Honestly people in America don't much like it when anything happens that takes their focus off the latest reality tv show. There's no real 'win' in this situation.

The best we can hope for is that people don't so something so monumentally stupid that we wind up in a third world war, one that has glow-in-the-dark consequences.

Stunted,



So I guess you didn't really mean it when it when you asked why we don't just let Iran have nukes then?

I have an even better idea; why don't we donate all our nuclear technology to Castro because he really wants it and we don't want to upset anyone.



Most intelligent thing you've said yet.

Achileez

Edited, Fri Jan 27 16:56:57 2006 by achileez

I'm trying to remember the name of that little country that's the only one to ever use a Nucular Weapon for real against a foreign country.

It'll come to me.

ISTR it later sold Botulinum toxin and nucular components to Saddam Hussein.

Wast it. . . Nahh. Give me a few more minutes.

I've been promoting this stance for years, buddy.

but my guess us that Israel will knock over the first domino.