He would, wouldn't he. Btw, I support Muhammad Khatami for Iranian presidency as he is a pro-West reformist and doesn't come to New York and shout Death to Israel and Death to America.
He would, wouldn't he. Btw, I support Muhammad Khatami for Iranian presidency as he is a pro-West reformist and doesn't come to New York and shout Death to Israel and Death to America.
The election in Iran is going to be close. I don't think anyone will miss Ahmadinejad, liberal or conservative. Hell, I'd take Castro or maybe even Saddam over him.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
Kasz216 said:
Because once someone gets Nuclear Weapons you can't take them away. Because they have nuclear weapons. Letting everyone have nuclear weapons is like creating the political situation before WW1 again.... except instead of a war, it would be armmageddon. To prevent ANY country from developing nuclear weapons be it Iran or Sweeden is a good idea. Though espiecially Iran. |
I think it would be armageddon anyways, with the powers that already have nuclear weapons. For MAD to work though, potentially conflicting powers need to both have nuclear war heads. Of course this really never ceased the violence, it just created a system that needs proxy wars. I agree with you though completely. Although, I can't imagine even a fundamentalist who is a smart politician (i.e. someone who enjoys power and probably the materiality of that power) wanting to destroy him/herself for 'God'. I agree more with the point about someone else getting the weapon (like some poor backwater terrorists) rather than even a rogue 'state' using a nuclear weapon. It's just too risky-or at least that's what I hope to believe.