Iranian cleric: Promiscuous women cause quakes

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

if barry white said this you people wouldn't have a problem with it yall just hate muslims

[Darth Avlectus]

And this is overlooking the fact the US happens to be the only nation in the world to have actually used two nuclear devices against civilian populations.

 

Nuclear based technology, yes--but Atomic Bomb isn't *quite* the same as a nuclear bomb. Just saying.

 

 

 

Now, here's the MASSIVE surprise. Not all of us(read:Muslims) believe that such persons represent us in any way. I likely have more in common with you than with them(points at Banner).

As much I would hope. I'd condemn any actions so taken in the name of my faith*, and I'd hope all others of all other faiths would do the same.

 

*Just exactly what that faith be is in question b/c though I think I'm a christian it has been pointed out to me I have several things about it putting me in the camp of 'not so'.

 

 

Would you like me to think that the idiots depicted below represent "you people" and "your area in general" (US and its Citizens)?

 

*pic dashed for brevity*

 

Not at all. I would try to persuade you otherwise but you are allowed think and associate as you will.

[Darth333]

All I had to read was "Iranian" and I knew it would be pathetic...

 

Then you know very little about the country, its history, culture and inhabitants to generalize in such a way...

[Totenkopf]

In the current context of contemporary events, I'd say that urluckyday's comment isn't beyond the pale, nor necessarily TA's either. While generalizing about cultures can lead to otherwise ignorant statements, it's pretty clear that there are some parts of the world that are still pretty backward. Does that mean that everyone in those countries are rubes......no. But then such observations are often not absolute either. The problem with many muslim countries today is not that they have no rich cultural past, but that they are often now ruled by theocrats or petty strongmen and the rapid spread of wahabist theology throughout the world. Suffice it to say, though, that to go into that any further would really constitute splitting this thread and putting it into KC.

[Darth InSidious]

Because, you know, Western public figures never say ridiculously stupid things. And the cultural output of the West is so rich and fertile, building upon its great traditions.

 

Blah blah, US is a holy nation under gawd, blah blah, might makes right, blah blah backward johnny foreigner, blah blah gunboat diplomacy, blah blah.

 

I'm afraid I think I left my monocle and handlebar at home, so I shall have to simply kick the slaves - a cane just wouldn't be right when so underdressed, would it?

[Jae Onasi]

We've officially strayed into Kavar's territory, so I moved the thread. Carry on.

[Darth333]

In the current context of contemporary events, I'd say that urluckyday's comment isn't beyond the pale, nor necessarily TA's either. While generalizing about cultures can lead to otherwise ignorant statements, it's pretty clear that there are some parts of the world that are still pretty backward.

I disagree. Despite that Iran is currently run by a theocratic (and secretive, manipulative) regime, merely saying that this part of the world is "pretty backwards" is rather simplistic. Perhaps reading about Iran's past 40-50 yrs history and diplomatic relations would help? no? Things are not as simple as they may seem.

 

But your simplistic argument about America and the use of nuclear weapons vs population centers ignores context.

So do TA and urluckyday's statements.

[Astrotoy7]

if barry white said this you people wouldn't have a problem with it yall just hate muslims

 

LMAO. Damnit jmac, that was awesome

 

Now that I can't even tirade against you, there's nothing to do in this thread

 

*shuffles sand around aimlessly*

 

mtfbwya

[Liverandbacon]

My opinion before reading this was that Iran is made up of a population of people as sane as most other nationalities, who are unfortunately ruled by a group of not-so-sane people. This is based on my own experiences with Iranians, and those of people I know.

 

My opinion hasn't changed. I think that the cleric's opinions are idiotic and hilarious, but I don't see him as a barometer of the country any more than I do the Westboro Baptist Church for the US.

 

As for the whole nuclear weapons argument, this cleric is not why we don't want Iran to have nukes. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his buddies are. (As for the US' track record with nukes, the bombs dropped in Japan caused far fewer deaths both Japanese and American than the invasion that would otherwise be necessary, so they're nothing remotely near a black mark on the US's record. However, this thread isn't here to discuss nukes, so I'll leave it at that.)

 

Of course, as Iran continues what is almost certainly a nuclear weapons project, the entire world is standing around with their hands in their pockets, hoping that Israel will take care of the problem for them.

[Totenkopf]

Because, you know, Western public figures never say ridiculously stupid things. And the cultural output of the West is so rich and fertile, building upon its great traditions.

 

Blah blah, US is a holy nation under gawd, blah blah, might makes right, blah blah backward johnny foreigner, blah blah gunboat diplomacy, blah blah.

 

I'm afraid I think I left my monocle and handlebar at home, so I shall have to simply kick the slaves - a cane just wouldn't be right when so underdressed, would it?

 

Beyond your occasional anti-US rants, not quite sure where you're going with this. I'd agree that western public figures make stupid public statements, as do many others in the world. It's human. Doesn't take away from the fact that such views as "God is punishing people for X..." are viewed (at best) as quaint. Part of the reason I included Pat Robertson as someone (western) making comments in a similiar vein. But, don't kick the wogs too hard....wouldn't want you to sprain your ankle.

 

@D333--I think that given how regressive some of these regimes have become (or at least how they've presented themselves to the world), it's not unfair to notice it. I also agree, as indicated, that I don't believe it to be the case that all the people in any one country are so monolithic as to ALL be crazy, backward and developmentally retarded. The problem sometimes is being able to discern how much of a govt's public pronouncements are truly for domestic consumption by their political base and how much is indicative of their world view. In the case of Iran, Ahmadinejad's selection by the ruling mullahs and his blatherings about the 12th Imam don't evoke much confidence in their judgement. Doesn't help that he goes on about obliterating Israel while seeking nukes.

[True_Avery]

I realize I over generalized at the beginning of this thread and apologize for it. I explained myself to Astro in PMs, but as far as context goes I don't feel like pulling out a history book and recording 50 years of middle eastern history right now to back up why I don't think we should be occupying any part of that area right now. Suffice to say, I'll summarize that we're doing the same thing we did with Vietnam and it didn't work then, and it isn't working well now.

 

I apologize and did not mean to generalize all Muslims, or condemn the entire area, but suffice to say it is clear places like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel and so on are in civil unrest and war because of political meddling in countries and did not want forced changed, and much of what has happened to that area in the past 30 years can be attributed to the meddling of the US and the UN, leading previously fairly westernized countries into a religious uprising by theocratic tyrants, giving people like these Clerics more power where they did not previously.

 

Right now places like Afghanistan are being run by American created faux Democracy with a leaders we put into power 30 years ago, and then now, which, behind the curtain, is still a theocratic regime doing exactly what it did before, and will continue to do once we eventually leave until actual reform takes place again and it is back to a state similar to that of about 40 years ago.

 

The area has to allow itself to change culturally, through time. It is a waste of time and money to force a country that publicly murders people for witchcraft to suddenly be "Western" and peace loving when it goes against what is norm for many tribes, cities, and areas of places like Pakistan, Israel, Iraq, and so on. What happens to many innocents is a tragedy, but by occupying we only give extremist groups more ammo to recruit, and are avoiding the inevitability of another theocratic takeover once we leave, based on what happened in Vietnam, Iraq/Afghanistan from both us and the Russians previously, and so on. I realize that most of, especially the younger generations, are against much of what is happening (based primarily on the very large middle eastern immigrant population in San Diego), but continued involvement, again, only gives more ammo to mold this youth to a bad path. Also, just to clarify, by "norm" I do not mean it is accepted or loved, but rather a part of the lives of many areas in the last 30 years.

 

So, I apologize for over generalizing previously and am open to thoughts, corrections, etc on my stance.

[Sabretooth]

In the case of Iran, Ahmadinejad's selection by the ruling mullahs and his blatherings about the 12th Imam don't evoke much confidence in their judgement. Doesn't help that he goes on about obliterating Israel while seeking nukes.

 

In comparison, the United States is locked in a very vague "war on terror" which is essentially fighting amorphous guerilla outfits operating out of several dozens of nations. Not only that, but the previous American president has also made a faux pas by equating Iraqi insurgency with this war on terror.

 

In the last decade, the US has successfully invaded two Muslim nations, and considered invading at least two more (Iran and Pakistan). Plus, they're sitting on the world's largest nuclear stockpile. You're telling me that the people of Iran, whose last war was a successful resistance against the invasion of Iraq, have a lot of faith in the US not using nuclear weapons?

 

Iran's desire for personal safety is just as strong a case as any nation with nuclear weapons, including the Almighty Godnation US and its Divine Allies. Ahmadinejad may be a chest-beater, but it's the US that has been unpredictable in its war policy. If they can have nuclear weapons, then Iran can too.

[True_Avery]

^ That sums it up rather well regarding nukes. A better move than trying to invade and overthrow an established and very somewhat accepted government would be to back the hell off and stop poking at that area. I don't agree with much of what the current Iranian government does, but threatening invasion and force upon Iran gives them plenty reason to seek military power like Nukes at a faster rate than they may have been going.

 

They feel justified in gaining these weapons, and despite their questionable judgment they have as much "right" to gain them as anyone that owns them, including the US and its questionable judgment to threaten Iran in the first place, and invade neighboring countries.

[Totenkopf]

Relax, Sabre, b/c now that Obama's in town, the US is likely going to do nothing to stop them. Still, probably a good thing AQ Khan gave Pakistan the bomb to protect them from India. But frankly, yes, I believe the Iranians are counting on it (The US NOT using atomic weapons). Besides, if we'd wanted to do it and were as erratic, unstable and unpredictable as you seem to believe, we'd have done it already. The point, though, isn't whether Iranians have a right to self-protection, but whether the acqusition of nukes is desirable given the current people running that country. I'd say no.

[Sabretooth]

Still, probably a good thing AQ Khan gave Pakistan the bomb to protect them from India.

I actually think it's good that Pakistan has nuclear deterrence against its arch-rival, and despite the world's fears that Pakistan is a failing government on the verge of collapse, I think the Pakistani military is strong enough to safeguard their nukes.

 

The point, though, isn't whether Iranians have a right to self-protection, but whether the acqusition of nukes is desirable given the current people running that country. I'd say no.

 

And this is where the argument drives over a cliff and kills itself.

 

Desirable to whom? To an antagonistic nation, it's obviously undesirable. But that opinion has about as much weight as me desiring I could fly.

 

And believe me, nobody really has a problem with Iran's theocratic government other than Israel and the US. Israel has a valid reason to, because Iran actively opposes the nation, but why the US is so concerned about Iran's administration is beyond me. Theocratic or no, Iran has been a stable and prosperous democracy since the Islamic Revolution.

 

In contrast, post-invasion of Iraq has turned into a hellhole with a war raging for some 7 years now. This is a country right next to Iran. I'd rather Iran have nukes right now than be degenerated into what Iraq has become today, a hotbed of insurgency because of America's quest to liberate nations from their oppressive, tea-drinking tyrants.

[Darth Avlectus]

I don't think the iranian people necessarily are bad. In fact I know a few good people who are from Iran. It's their regime atop their government I'm rather wary of. Their people are powerless against it. I foresee Iran's head regime not going along with the disarm treaty while we do disarm. I wouldn't call it self protection so much as a vie for leverage.

 

Even if their people want peace and democracy, do they even understand it enough to go and do it for themselves? It has to come from within them--I'm not seeing it. While some of what I seen gives me hope for that (outrage and protest toward their rigged elections), I am not sure it is enough. It seems forever doomed to failure under a pre 8th century minded dictatorial regime.

 

Again, I do not see their whole people this way--just an outcome condemned to repeat itself no matter what we do or don't do. Their people have to stand up to this, ultimately. Otherwise there is little that can be done and I do not believe passively watching it unfold is something that can safely be done. The biggest tragedy is that Iran's people are/will be casualties waiting to happen no matter what.

 

Call me a bitter American but I'm not convinced the regime will respond genuinely to open dialog. It looks to me like a clock counting down.

 

Far as U.S. having nukes: Hey, it doesn't look like we have anyone unhinged enough to dare use them nor have had anyone nearly as such. I'd put any US regimeadmin. within the past 50-60 years above the current Iranian regime.

 

Far as the recent wars...yes I do believe they could have been done better but I'm not out there fighting so I can't really say.

[Totenkopf]

I actually think it's good that Pakistan has nuclear deterrence against its arch-rival, and despite the world's fears that Pakistan is a failing government on the verge of collapse, I think the Pakistani military is strong enough to safeguard their nukes.

 

Hopefully that'll ultimately prove to be the case. But then again, I'm not having nighmares of the Pakistanis losing their weapons either. Afterall, that's their counterbalance to India.

 

 

And this is where the argument drives over a cliff and kills itself.

Desirable to whom? To an antagonistic nation, it's obviously undesirable. But that opinion has about as much weight as me desiring I could fly.

And believe me, nobody really has a problem with Iran's theocratic government other than Israel and the US. Israel has a valid reason to, because Iran actively opposes the nation, but why the US is so concerned about Iran's administration is beyond me. Theocratic or no, Iran has been a stable and prosperous democracy since the Islamic Revolution.

 

In contrast, post-invasion of Iraq has turned into a hellhole with a war raging for some 7 years now. This is a country right next to Iran. I'd rather Iran have nukes right now than be degenerated into what Iraq has become today, a hotbed of insurgency because of America's quest to liberate nations from their oppressive, tea-drinking tyrants.

 

One doesn't have to be antagonistic to Iran to have qualms about it becoming a member of the nuclear club. Same is true of N Korea. That's where your argument jumps the shark. As to Iraq, the Iranians had their hand in helping create the wreck it further degenerated into. Wasn't exactly much under Sadam to begin with (unless, I guess, you were a Baathist). If you don't understand why America, specifically, has a problem with Iran, you're probably not paying attention. As to claims of insurgency, that's overrated as many of the fighters were foreigners going there to wage jihad in someone else's country. Ce` le guerre, I s'ppose. Besides, like NK, Iran doesn't lend itself to "easy conquest" and the media here would love nothing more than to display plane after plane of war dead coming home, especially if the president were a republican. I think that if anything happens, it's Israel that Iran needs to be concerned about, not America. And this administration doesn't seem likely to have much pull there at the moment.

[Sabretooth]

One doesn't have to be antagonistic to Iran to have qualms about it becoming a member of the nuclear club. Same is true of N Korea.

 

Again, I fail to see what shadows you're hinting at here without flat out saying why Iran's nuclear programme is a problem, but maybe I'm not paying attention.

 

As to claims of insurgency, that's overrated as many of the fighters were foreigners going there to wage jihad in someone else's country. Ce` le guerre, I s'ppose.

 

What, so the fact that insurgents are foreigners makes reports of insurgency overrated? The point is, that post-invasion Iraq is something Iran does not want to become - to prevent such an invasion, you need nuclear weapons for deterrence. The point of having nuclear weaponry has been, for many years, to prevent ground invasions along with nuclear invasion. The USA and USSR never fought a ground war despite hostilities - thanks to nuclear weapons. For all the nations the US has bombed in this century and the last, not one of them has had nuclear weapons (with the exception of drone strikes in Pakistan maybe, but that's a different matter). India and Pakistan, after going nuclear, have never fought a war on the same scale as they did before (the Kargil conflict was a limited war).

 

Nobody is stupid enough to actually throw a nuke on someone else - but most leaders are smart enough to know that nobody's going to touch you with a 10-foot pole if you have a nuke under your bed. North Korea needs security from South Korea, Japan and the US. Iran needs that security from the US and Israel.

[Totenkopf]

Again, I fail to see what shadows you're hinting at here without flat out saying why Iran's nuclear programme is a problem, but maybe I'm not paying attention.

 

Ground's already been covered. Suffice it to say that you've got no problem, not that there isn't one.

 

What, so the fact that insurgents are foreigners makes reports of insurgency overrated?

 

Foreigners aren't insurgents. They're invaders or meddlers, if you wish to be kind.

 

The point is, that post-invasion Iraq is something Iran does not want to become - *snipped for brevity* - North Korea needs security from South Korea, Japan and the US. Iran needs that security from the US and Israel.

 

Your first comment is merely your dearly hoped for opinion. Remind me, b/c maybe I wasn't paying attention, again why NK needs nukes? I don't recall SK attacking NK. Japan is not a threat given their constitution and lack of desire to invade anyone and the US ain't attacking NK either. There's already a regional deterrent called the PRC. So, no, a rogue nation like NK doesn't need nukes, except maybe to protect it from its leaders in Pyongyang. As to Iran, NK clearly demonstrates you don't need nukes to "keep America out". Fact is, even in an era of "hyperpower", the US hasn't used its military to topple many regimes worldwide, even when they cause it a lot of problems like Cuba or VZ throughout Latin America or Iran for much of the last 30 years.

[Sabretooth]

Remind me, b/c maybe I wasn't paying attention, again why NK needs nukes? I don't recall SK attacking NK. Japan is not a threat given their constitution and lack of desire to invade anyone and the US ain't attacking NK either. There's already a regional deterrent called the PRC.

South Korea and North Korea are still locked in a war even though they declared ceasefire long ago. North Korea has sworn not to end the war until the whole of the Korean peninsula is under their government. In a state of war, they need protection at any cost.

 

Next, North Korea does not trust the United States, and views Japan to be a pawn of the US. If the US were to launch a complete invasion of NK, it would be with Japan's assistance.

 

Further, North Korea would like to assert its independence from the PRC by having nukes that would ensure that it is its own protector, and not a pawn of the PRC to keep SK and Japan balanced.

 

Again, maybe the don't need nukes, but then, neither does the US or Russia.

 

Fact is, even in an era of "hyperpower", the US hasn't used its military to topple many regimes worldwide, even when they cause it a lot of problems like Cuba or VZ throughout Latin America or Iran for much of the last 30 years.

But they happen to be the only ones who can, and that is the whole point. You don't want Iran to have nukes because you fear they may launch them on someone - possibly the US. But that is also a possibility - we can't tell by Iran's previous record that they will launch their nukes either, because they've never launched nukes, or have even committed an offensive against a nation. In fact, Iran support the Northern Alliance over the Taliban regarding the Afghanistan situation, and look where America's support for Taliban got them.

 

Boils down to this: Iran is afraid of the possibility of US invasion, much as US is afraid of Iran's nukes.

[Totenkopf]

South Korea and North Korea are still locked in a war even though they declared ceasefire long ago. North Korea has sworn not to end the war until the whole of the Korean peninsula is under their government. In a state of war, they need protection at any cost.

 

Next, North Korea does not trust the United States, and views Japan to be a pawn of the US. If the US were to launch a complete invasion of NK, it would be with Japan's assistance.

 

Further, North Korea would like to assert its independence from the PRC by having nukes that would ensure that it is its own protector, and not a pawn of the PRC to keep SK and Japan balanced.

 

Again, maybe the don't need nukes, but then, neither does the US or Russia.

 

Criminals want heavier weapons to protect themselves from the police or their potential victims. Doesn't mean they should have 'em. This is a rather fanciful scenario. NK is the aggressor in the 60 year old and counting war. So, who are they really protecting themselves from? NK couldn't assert it's independence from the PRC if it wanted. China has a much bigger military than NK ever will and many more nukes. KJI is mostly interested in acquiring nukes as a point of pride and a source of revenue. He already sells his version of Scud worldwide. Irony is, getting nukes for NK isn't going to change much of anything from a security viewpoint b/c the US has neither the will nor the logisitics train in place to be bothered invading them. Nor the desire to upset its relationship w/the PRC. Japan clearly doesn't have the military might and the SK is more interested in making a buck and probably hoping NK goes the way of East Germany. If anything, his getting nukes is more destabilizing b/c it's more likely to push the south to want to acquire their own. Ditto for Japan. Afterall, if America is in decline and unwilling/unable to use its nuke umbrella, they'll want insurance of their own.

 

But they happen to be the only ones who can, and that is the whole point. You don't want Iran to have nukes because you fear they may launch them on someone - possibly the US. But that is also a possibility - we can't tell by Iran's previous record that they will launch their nukes either, because they've never launched nukes, or have even committed an offensive against a nation. In fact, Iran support the Northern Alliance over the Taliban regarding the Afghanistan situation, and look where America's support for Taliban got them.

 

Boils down to this: Iran is afraid of the possibility of US invasion, much as US is afraid of Iran's nukes.

 

Just b/c you think someone can do something doesn't mean they can or that they will want to. I don't fear an Iranian nuke strike on US territory. Besides, we can't say that they won't with any confidence either. So that argument is empty. There's always a first time for anything. What it all really boils down to is that Iran isn't actually afraid of a US land invasion (esp w/this current admin) regardless of whatever rhetoric it spews. Iran wants to be a regional hegemon and needs nukes to accomplish it. Given the lack of the world to act vs them in the face of their defiance, I'm pretty sure the last thing they even remotely fear is a US land invasion. The bigger concern is what their nuke intentions toward Israel actually are and whether or not the rulers and power brokers in Iran actually believe in the Madi in the way that Bush's detractors tried to argue he was attempting to elicit the 2nd Coming.

[Sabretooth]

What it all really boils down to is that Iran isn't actually afraid of a US land invasion (esp w/this current admin) regardless of whatever rhetoric it spews. Iran wants to be a regional hegemon and needs nukes to accomplish it.

Does this work kind of like how the United States wants to be a global hegemon by having the world's largest nuclear stockpile, while stopping others from having them?

 

The bigger concern is what their nuke intentions toward Israel actually are and whether or not the rulers and power brokers in Iran actually believe in the Madi in the way that Bush's detractors tried to argue he was attempting to elicit the 2nd Coming.

 

Their nuke intentions toward Israel? If Iran fired a missile in the direction of Israel, it's going to earn the wrath of the entire United Nations, which would result in obliteration of the nation, either by nuclear war or a massive co-ordinated land invasion. Don't tell me that a leader as powerful and intelligent (I mean this word) as the Ayatollah wants to fling a nuke at Israel because it pisses him off. Like I said in a previous thread, as much as the West would like to believe, third world nations are not run by mindless megalomaniacs who want to be the next Genghis Khan.

[Astor]

Their nuke intentions toward Israel? If Iran fired a missile in the direction of Israel, it's going to earn the wrath of the entire United Nations, which would result in obliteration of the nation, either by nuclear war or a massive co-ordinated land invasion. Don't tell me that a leader as powerful and intelligent (I mean this word) as the Ayatollah wants to fling a nuke at Israel because it pisses him off. Like I said in a previous thread, as much as the West would like to believe, third world nations are not run by mindless megalomaniacs who want to be the next Genghis Khan.

 

This.

 

I'd be far more concerned about Israel flinging nukes than Iran. As far as I can see, Iran likes to rattle the sabre (no pun intented ) as far as Israel is concerned because their blade is blunt - I think they'd be more careful if it was sharp.

[Totenkopf]

Does this work kind of like how the United States wants to be a global hegemon by having the world's largest nuclear stockpile, while stopping others from having them?

 

Stopping whom? There have been quite a few powers that have joined the nuke club over the past two decades or so, including Pakistan and India. It's not only America's nukes that give it the influence it commands. Britain and France have nukes also, but not the same kind of reach. Ditto for China and Russia, post Soviet dissolution. Besides, as I recall, nuclear non-proliferation isn't just an American concern.

 

Their nuke intentions toward Israel? If Iran fired a missile in the direction of Israel, it's going to earn the wrath of the entire United Nations, which would result in obliteration of the nation, either by nuclear war or a massive co-ordinated land invasion. Don't tell me that a leader as powerful and intelligent (I mean this word) as the Ayatollah wants to fling a nuke at Israel because it pisses him off. Like I said in a previous thread, as much as the West would like to believe, third world nations are not run by mindless megalomaniacs who want to be the next Genghis Khan.

 

The wrath of the whole UN? What does that amount to these days....probably little more than yet another empty declaration of something or another. Seriously, a massive coordinated land invasion? By whom? More likely a counterstrike by Israel (the most likely target). Given that Israel is believed to have had bombs for several decades, and not yet fired any in anger, I'm less wary of them. Frankly, I'm not aware of anyone claiming that all 3rd world countries are run by meglomaniacs w/delusions of adequacy. Just some of them. Let's just hope that if these people get they nuke they are as "rational" as the terrorist in the movie "Wrong is Right", where upon pulling off a coup, he was no longer interested in nuclear terror as he now had "skin in the game". To suggest that the Iranian leadership is merely "pissed off" at Israel is an understatement, possibly a complete mischaracterization. The problem is seperating how much of the rhetoric is merely that and how much is what they actually believe.

[Sabretooth]

The wrath of the whole UN? What does that amount to these days....probably little more than yet another empty declaration of something or another.

After a nuclear strike has been committed by a power? It will amount to a third world war, although a much shorter one. I don't think anybody is going to just stand by if Iran, or anyone for that matter, used a nuclear weapon.

 

Given that Israel is believed to have had bombs for several decades, and not yet fired any in anger, I'm less wary of them.

Yes, unlike the Soviet Union, India/Pakistan, China or... wait, none of those nations have every launched a nuke "in anger".

 

Just some of them. Let's just hope that if these people get they nuke they are as "rational" as the terrorist in the movie "Wrong is Right", where upon pulling off a coup, he was no longer interested in nuclear terror as he now had "skin in the game".

Yeah, I don't know that movie now, but securing a nuke is a way of international chest-beating and national power. If you can guarantee your nation to have a nuclear weapon, people are going to have much more trust in your power. Launch that nuke though, and you're going to lose all the power you have meticulous earned.

 

To suggest that the Iranian leadership is merely "pissed off" at Israel is an understatement, possibly a complete mischaracterization.

Ah yes, they are completely independent of the very nature of pissing offness, I see my mistake now.

 

BTW, here's a fun strip of SMBC I knew would be useful in countless debates:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)