Armada of British naval power massing in the Gulf as Israel prepares an Iran strike

North Korea kicked out monitors, developed nuclear bombs, and tested nuclear bombs repeatedly.

Nobody was harmed, no massive destruction occurred, everything went just fine.

Ergo, allowing Iran to kick out monitors and to finish building nuclear facilities will not lead to any harm, will not lead to any massive destruction, and everything will be just fine.

Every now and then, they reveal the real reason: Iranian nuclear weapons would prevent the US from attacking Iran at will, and that is what is intolerable. The latest person to unwittingly reveal the real reason for viewing an Iranian nuclear capacity as unacceptable was GOP Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the US's most reliable and bloodthirsty warmongers.

"They have two goals: one, regime survival. The best way for the regime surviving, in their mind, is having a nuclear weapon, because when you have a nuclear weapon, nobody attacks you."

As Jonathan Schwarz has extensively documented, this is what US policy elites have said over and over. In 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned:
"Several of these [small enemy nations] are intensely hostile to the United States and are arming to deter us from bringing our conventional or nuclear power to bear in a regional crisis."

In 2002, State Department official Philip Zelikow said that if Iraq were permitted to keep its WMDs, "they now can deter us from attacking them, because they really can retaliate against us."

The No 1 concern of American national security planners appears to be that countries may be able to prevent the US from attacking them at will, whether to change their regimes or achieve other objectives. In other words, Iranian nuclear weapons could be used to prevent wars – ones started by the US – and that, above all, is what we must fear.

Whatever one thinks of Iran, the signal the US has sent to the world is unmistakable: any rational government should acquire nuclear weapons.

Yes, if there were a good way to quantify ahead of time (rather than reactively) "less dangerous," then we would be in fine shape. But there's not, which is why he is completely wrong.

And further more, keep in mind that Ahmanidejad isn't even the one completely in power -- there are other crazies who outrank him in the govt.

Sometimes the real reasons for not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons is said quite clearly.

By Glenn Greenwald, star of the "Are you on Obama's Little List" video in my sig.
The true reason US fears Iranian nukes: they can deter US attacks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment...deterrence

I see now why you were banned so often. You spam threads with the same message over and over.

Sometimes the real reasons for not wanting Iran to have nuclear weapons is said quite clearly.

but you've never been good at admitting you're wrong.

You seem to be implying here that the leaders of the Iranian government may be more dangerous than the North Korean leadership.

Please show us how you came to this line of thinking.

They can however attack Israel or one of our bases in another country but by doing the latter they would be attacking another country really more so than us.

Has he actually ever done it?