Now if only they can prove how they're going to use this "peaceful" uranium

Oh crap! Like I'm not away from home enough as it is. I miss the good old days of the cold war when we stayed home most of the time and just gave the "enemy" the stink eye on TV.

hmmm, how many countries has iran invaded lately?

Are we counting Iranian-funded kidnappings of Israeli soldiers in this equation?

No, because that isn't an invasion, blockhead.

well said

These are not sanctions. This is an admission of defeat. Iran has won.

UN Sanctions. Yawn. Have sanctions ever done anything remotely productive in such examples?

This is all part of a well-choreographed dance towards military intervention.

Let's cut to the chase and just have Israel go ahead with airstrikes. That is why we (the U.S.) give them (Israel) hundreds of millions in military aid each year - to do some of our dirty work. The whole Lebanon campaign/fiasco this year was fully approved in advance by Washington. After all, we paid for the bombs and had to give, yet again, UN security council cover for Israel's actions.

Clearly there will be a few more rounds of sanctions. And then with a Democrat as president and the US still trying to get out of the mess in Iraq, Israel will have to take the lead and bomb the nuke materials sites.

Too bad. I think the world would be safer with a nuclear Iran. Because with Iranian nukes and the proven means for delivery countries like the US and Israel would actually have to negotiate in good faith rather than bully their way around the world. This scares Israel shitless which is why they just might prove Mel right and start WW-III in ernest.

Please tell me you are kidding.

Below a certain number of warheads (and preferably a few on subs) nuclear weapons are a first-strike "use it or lose it" weapons system. Above that number, retaliation becomes a viable option since enough weapons and their delivery systems will survive a first strike to turn the agressor nation into a smoking wasteland. That is how mutual assured destruction works.

At the political level, do you really trust the Iranian president not to get up one morning a decide today is the day he wipes Israel off the map?

The size of Israel and the proximity of Israel and Iran greatly factor into the equation. They would likely go to a "launch on warning" system. That means they would launch a retaliatory strike based on detection of inbound missiles if not hitting first to remove the possibility of any weapons from the other side hitting them. How many times have computer system malfunctions or issues with the DEW line, DEFSMAC, etc produced eroneous warnings?

I think you're right about the process though. We will go through a few rounds of sanctions and then Israel and possibly other forces will delete the Iranian nuclear program.

While I don't like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons as the only country to ever use nukes as a weapon and against civliians for that matter the US is the ultimate hypocrite when it comes to nuclear prolifiration.

As far as I am concered, if one country has nukes, every other country has the right to have them to protect themselves. But it's Iran's own damn fault for signing the non proliferation treaty. But does anyone give a shit about UN sanctions anymore?

You have got to be fucking kidding me. First of all Mel said Jews start all the wars not Israelis. Second it scares the shit out of Israel because Ahmadinejad keeps talking about destroying Israel so I doubt that Iran obtaining nukes will bring anyone to the table in "good faith".

Jayyyyy-sus wept! Now I remember why I try to avoid the CE boards at all costs.

There is truth in jest. The world would be closer to seeing nukes used in anger if Iran develops The Bomb, and this heightened danger would generate another Cold War and detente of sorts. A new dawn of negotiation and closer diplomatic relationships.

With a nuclear Iran to match a nuclear Israel, the game changes. Almost-genie-mad (or is it Almond-dingy-dad?!?) would not make such blatantly hostile and abrasive comments if Tehran had nukes. Because just as he could wake-up and say 'Today is the day', Israel could fuel-up some rockets and 'remove the threat'. THEY WOULD HAVE TO TALK! Especially with the close proximity that you noted.

MAD has a perfect track record of preventing major wars. It is 2 for 2, with the US and USSR standing down and Paki/India holding fast with LESS problems in Kashmir. MAD is maybe even 3 for 3 if you include North Korea.

And I do stand corrected on Mel.

The UN is largely a waste of fucking time, it is the bartender telling everyone to stop dropping the F bomb on a Saturday Night.

We all know the bartender can't stop giving us beer, or throw us all out!

Iran having nuclear weapons would not be good, especailly since no one ever explained what Hezbollah was doing with Iranian made missile systems when they were attacking Isreal.

Or why the Iranian President claimed how he was proud to support Hezbollah in it's struggle.

Now, follow with me here my liberal friends.

If Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and the President of Iran is supporting them, what does that mean he supports?

And where will those nukes end up?