Quote:
Originally Posted by wabpilot
Really? Let's examin that propsition, shall we. 1979. Iran, an oil rich nation takes an overt step toward war with the USA by seizing its embassy in violation of international law and its treaty obligations with the US, but it has no significant nuclear weapons program.
|
No argument there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wabpilot
During the 1980s and 1990s Iran supplies terrorist organizations with money, training and weapons to strike at the US and our allies, yet has no significant nuclear weapons program.
|
The US military provided decisive support for Saddam's murderous aggression against the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war. I'm sure you can look up the dates and compare them with the dates you've just given me above, then see if you could grasp why Iran might not like the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wabpilot
Now, if you are thinking logically, the conclusion you have to draw is that a little terrorism, and a little propaganda will not get you invaded, but serious pursuit of a nuclear weapon will certainly get the US upset enough to do real harm to your economy and at least threaten an invasion.
|
A logical conclusion would be that if you follow orders, you don't get invaded. Even when Saddam was killing his own people and killing nobody knows how many hundreds of thousands of Iranians, we were still supporting him militarily - he was following orders. When he invaded Kuwait, he was a bad boy.
As I said in a post earlier, the US reserves the right to act unilaterally and in violation of international law when it feels threatened, should we extend the same right to Iran? Why? Or why not?