Iran Cracks US Stealth Spy Drone’s Secrets, Shows Proof

[Stark]

You mean murder and hypocrisy?

PS you're pretty much trained from birth to see t as less evil so how rational a decision is that really?

[Aaron MkII]

Oh, you one of those UN hating guys?

[HMS Conqueror]

The UN is just a club for states [criminals] and run by them. It has no more moral authority than the sum of its members.

Stark: to see what as evil? I doubt I am trained from birth to see whatever it is as evil, though, because my political views have changed quite a bit since I was born.

[Stark]

Dude listen to his lanaguage - it's pure tribal atavism. I WANT MY TEAM TO RULE ALL. Why? Because he's weak and wants to be associated with power. Every oppressive regime has people like him supporting it through fear that they think is courage because someone else kills people.

The whole 'our enemies are powerful and must be stopped, which is easy because they are so weak' thing is still giving me a laugh. It's textbook, absolutely textbook.

[Aaron MkII]

He's the first one I've met outside Canadian gun nutz, fascinating.

[HMS Conqueror]

Stark: Who are you talking to?

If you want to be taken seriously:

1. Make posts that are more than 1 or 2 lines.

2. Engage with the points being made and the person you're addressing, rather than addressing glib statements at no one in particular.

3. If you want to insult people rather than debate, do it directly. The worst that's going to happen is that they make a fool of you; it's not like IRL where they might hit you or something.

[Aaron MkII]

He's talking to me.

[Simon_Jester]

If they're building centrifuges as a bargaining chip...

That strikes me as being about as stupid a subordination of large things to small things as anything the US is doing on the Middle Eastern policy front...

[Vashon]

bin Laden absolutely did not take credit before we attacked. He denied it at first.

He tried to blow up the World Trade Center before. That's at least circumstantial evidence supporting the theory that he tried to do it again. Combined with the confession, and the fact that the US hasn't even tried to find another culprit for the attacks, I consider this one something of a slam-dunk.

Because it is really not credible that the US did it to itself (see trutherism). And if some entirely different party had done it, I don't think the US government would have just laughed that shit off and decided to go beat up Al Qaeda instead.

I will admit that the US habit of moving the goalposts in negotiations with the Iranians over this stuff is... incredibly dumb. It's the sort of thing done by posturing idiots who care more about scoring points and situational looking-tough than about any kind of stable arrangement.

On the other hand, the entire point of the deal would be to prevent the Iranians from slowly sidling toward nuclear capability- so insisting that they stop enriching uranium makes a certain amount of sense in that context. The Brazil/Turkey-Iran 'swap' deal you discussed here (1200 kg of enriched uranium for some highly-enriched fuel rods) seems kind of pointless if the Iranians just keep turning out more enriched uranium.

Given what the US has been trying to accomplish from square one, I can't figure out why the US didn't include "and stop enriching uranium" as part of its list of requests in the first place.

What point? The one that is hardly legitimate in my eyes? This 'bloodlust' bullcrap is utterly pointless. Of course we we wanted revenge. It was the first successful attack on our home soil by Al-Qaeda. They rammed two planes into the towers, they commited an act of war.

That didnt end well for them.

As far as Des goes...dude Bin Laden took credit multiple times. The rest of your drivel is just you shouting your opinion with no intentions of hearing other arguements aside from something to yell at.

...Are you talking to me?

'Cos see, I'm talking about Iran, and you're talking about Al-Qaeda and 9/11 and so on.

Do you... my God. Do you actually think Iran had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda?

Or are you just vaguely rambling about something the voices in your head told you?

Quoted the wrong person. Tends to happen with a cellphone and double-quote buttons. :p


No, whats really fucked up is that Iran was handing over a shitload of intel on the Taliban and I beleive Al Qaeda when Bush made that Axie of Evil speech. It gets better. During the mid-nineties, a bunch of Persian(it sounds cooler than Iranian.) had settled down near the border region with Afghanistan but on the Afghani side. So instead of tqlks or whatever, the Taliban went and murdered the fuckin put of them. Iran was gearing up for war when the White House, yes seriously, asked them to hold off. They listened to Washington and backed off, likely figuring that refraining from warmongering would earn some brownie points and heal the wounds.


Heh. When the Axis of Evil shit happened, it basically sent Iran the message of "No, fuck off we hate you. Cause we can". And everybody who had tried to get closer to America was discreditted and the Ayatollah realized that healing the wounds simply was never going to happen. Then, the nuclear program. One last chance to work with Iran and get them to see us as friends and maybe allies. But nope, we spent the last ten years spewing combative rhetoric and surrounding them with military bases and doing our best to isolate them.


Iran has no choice but to push ahead with the current nuclear program and lay the foundation for nuclear weapons. Because apparently, its the only thing that gets America off your back. The deal for Iran gets even sweeter. See, if they cant export their oil, they might lose money now but once Saudi Arabia and Iraq start running low, they will all this stockpile and plentiful reserves. And likely nuclear weapons to fully discourage any invasion. If they can last long enough.

Even without nuclear weapons, Iran has focused on becoming a hell for occupiers. They jave no illusion about being able to face down the Western Militaries on the battlefield and do not suffer the horrifying incompentency of the Iraqis. And they have had a full decade to prepare. Plus shitloads of mountains. It would be as bad or worse than Vietnam. Especially because unlike Iraq, we simply do not have the available manpower to ever occupy ot.

Now as far as Iraq goes, it stupid and unneccesary but whats worse, they did it wrong. Even better, they cut taxes during wartime. A better solution for at least the income taxes would be cuts that were only half as much as the original cuts and then putting more tax brackets near the top. Say 10 mil, 50 mil, 100 mil, 250 mil, 500 mil, and so on until you hit ten bil. In profits. 10 mil a year would be 38%, 50 would be 42% ending with the absolute top being 92% for those who come out ahead ten bil. Make the Capital gains graduated too or just make it the same as Incoome tax.

A good deal less for corporate taxes. Dont wanna kill jobs.

Sorry for the tax rant, its just the most mindboggling stupid thing ever to cut taxes during a war. They should have listened to Colin Powell as far as troop numbers.

Oh and Destructionator, since that happened over two years ago, mind posting just how that deal went through? An update if you will?

[Zinegata]

Like I said wrt the taliban, hating gays has nothing to do with making sane decisions when it comes to things like military suicide. It actually has very little to do with anything else: people compartmentalize certain beliefs, including ones that are inconsitent with each other (e.g., a creationist biologist).

Dude, again, no.

As I have already shown - the Taliban were simply a fucknuts insane regime from start to finish. They were still off spouting crazy bullshit about the Jews bombing the World Trade Center right up until the moment their regime was threatened with annihilation. Because they're seriously THAT crazy and think that they will get 50 virgins in paradise the moment the US blows them to pieces. It wasn't a principled decision to protect an "innocent" man or because they wanted peace; it was simply them being flat-out crazy.

So again: only an idiot can believe the Taliban were a sane regime in any way or form. That is why the UN unanimously voted for their sanction in '99. They didn't have this ability to compartmentalize. They were seriously a bunch of nutcases who were off blowing stuff for shits and giggles. That's the point.

Iran however is a different case. I may mock Dr. "I deny the Holocaust", but Iran at least does have moderate elements within it, such as the case with their previous president. And their diplomacy is certainly more rational than "Show us evidence it was Bin Laden; but it doesn't matter anyway because it was really the Jews who did it based on our own non-existent evidence!"

Still, I'm not really a fan of Iran gaining any more power in the region. They're the ones who are supporting the Syrians slaughtering their own citizens.

[Bakustra]

Joan of Arc believed, or at least expressed that angels and saints personally spoke to her. Guess all those trial documents must have been falsified, because such an obvious nut couldn't have defended herself as marvelously as the trial records claim she did! This is exactly what your argument is with regards to the Taliban- they believed, or at least expressed, some pretty nutty things, and so they could not have had any capacity for rational thought or behavior!

[Zinegata]

Joan of Arc believed, or at least expressed that angels and saints personally spoke to her. Guess all those trial documents must have been falsified, because such an obvious nut couldn't have defended herself as marvelously as the trial records claim she did! This is exactly what your argument is with regards to the Taliban- they believed, or at least expressed, some pretty nutty things, and so they could not have had any capacity for rational thought or behavior!

LOL.

First of all, again - I'm not saying compartmentalization is impossible. Which is why I again said Iran is actually a sane regime despite Dr. I Deny The Holocaust. Iran is not on the same level as the Taliban, and it actually hurts the case of anyone sympathetic to Iran by making the comparison.

Secondly, you are seriously comparing Joan of Arc - who lived in the 1400s - with the Taliban of circa 2000. Not only is this a dishonest comparison (because, you know, we don't think "Killing for your God" is cool anymore in the 20th Century); but it also totally ignores the core of the argument anyway - which is that the Taliban NEVER showed any signs of being a rational government. They never managed to form a coherent argument like the way you claim Joan did. "We demand you show evidence, but that's irrelevant anyway because the Jews blew up the World Trade Center based on our non-existent evidence!" is not the words of a sane or reasonable government, or of a sane or reasonable person.

Thirdly, can you stop pretending that you're actually arguing - because these are utterly awful arguments - and just admit that this is you wanting my hot body all to yourself again?

[Bakustra]

Joan of Arc believed, or at least expressed that angels and saints personally spoke to her. Guess all those trial documents must have been falsified, because such an obvious nut couldn't have defended herself as marvelously as the trial records claim she did! This is exactly what your argument is with regards to the Taliban- they believed, or at least expressed, some pretty nutty things, and so they could not have had any capacity for rational thought or behavior!

LOL.

First of all, again - I'm not saying compartmentalization is impossible. Which is why I again said Iran is actually a sane regime despite Dr. I Deny The Holocaust. Iran is not on the same level as the Taliban, and it actually hurts the case of anyone sympathetic to Iran by making the comparison.

Secondly, you are seriously comparing Joan of Arc - who lived in the 1400s - with the Taliban of circa 2000. Not only is this a dishonest comparison (because, you know, we don't think "Killing for your God" is cool anymore in the 20th Century); but it also totally ignores the core of the argument anyway - which is that the Taliban NEVER showed any signs of being a rational government. They never managed to form a coherent argument like the way you claim Joan did. "We demand you show evidence, but that's irrelevant anyway because the Jews blew up the World Trade Center based on our non-existent evidence!" is not the words of a sane or reasonable government, or of a sane or reasonable person.

Thirdly, can you stop pretending that you're actually arguing - because these are utterly awful arguments - and just admit that this is you wanting my hot body all to yourself again?

Wrong. The Taliban refused to follow through on their Deobandi/Wahabbi policies by destroying the graves of Sufi pirs or denying the ability of dreams as a means of revelation, which is a rational adaptation to the political situation of Afghanistan. They took a number of actions to solidify their control of Afghanistan, which is also a rational action. Mullah Omar altered his opinion on the opium trade when it became apparent it was the easiest economic activity that he could make use of under Taliban ideology. This is also a rational action. The Taliban were quite capable of compartmentalizing.

By the way, mimicking me doesn't make you any less of a waste of flesh, you syphilitic sycophant.

[Alkaloid]

I'm confused as to your point, Z. You are saying either the Taliban genuinely believed the Jews, or some Jews or a grand conspiracy of Jews was responsible for 9/11, or that they didn't believe that and just said it to try and discredit Jewish people in general, correct?

If that's the case, neither one of those scenarios means that they don't have a right to, or shouldn't, demand evidence of a crime before extraditing someone. If the US could or would not provide any evidence that Bin Laden did in fact orchestrate these attacks, why should they have extradited him? The fact that the Taliban are batshit crazy only really matters if you hand them solid evidence and they ignore it or continue to demand more evidence.

[Zinegata]

Wrong. The Taliban refused to follow through on their Deobandi/Wahabbi policies by destroying the graves of Sufi pirs or denying the ability of dream, which is a rational adaptation to the political situation of Afghanistan. They took a number of actions to solidify their control of Afghanistan, which is also a rational action. Mullah Omar altered his opinion on the opium trade when it became apparent it was the easiest economic activity that he could make use of under Taliban ideology. This is also a rational action. The Taliban were quite capable of compartmentalizing.

Point taken on those specific instances (albeit they're all internal actions, as opposed to their actions on the international stage), but you have yet to show that they were compartmentalizing over the 9/11 issue. Again: At the same time they were demanding evidence, they were claiming that the Jews bombed the World Trade Center based on ZERO evidence. That is again not the actions of a state that is seriously trying to avert war or to protect an innocent man; that's the fucknuts Taliban who blow up World Heritage Sites for shits and giggles.

By the way, mimicking me doesn't make you any less of a waste of flesh, you syphilitic sycophant.

LOL, you think I'm actually mimicking you?

Well that explains a lot of things given that everything you say is just a projection of your innermost thoughts. You actually think that you're a total waste of flesh and a syphilitic sycophant. Which isn't surprising, given that you were projecting your dogrape fantasies during our last spat.

That totally explains why you go to New Testingstan for your little group theraphy sessions. "Boohoo, Zine is mean to us, let's make fun of him in our private little forum."

It's actually pretty funny because it's so sad.

[And just to be clear to the cool NT folks - and you know who you are - I'm just messing with Bakustra ]

[Bakustra]

My dear, the day I graced you with an insult was the defining moment of your young life, but to me, it was Tuesday.

And really, since you're at the point of demanding that I read the minds of the Taliban leadership to prove that they were rational at a particular point when your entire argument up to this point has rested on "they were too craaaazy to be rational!!", there's really nothing else to do but laugh at you and poke fun at you until you suffer yet another freakout.

So anyways, I've figured out that all the sexual coding in your posts is because, as a sycophant for whatever America does, you feel that you need American Dick to feel complete and whole as a human being. Well, honey, this American wedding tackle ain't going anywhere near your skanky orifices. I guess you'll have to find Stars-and-Stripes Tallywhacker somewhere else, and given your multitude of personality defects, any partner you end up with will be hatefucking seconds in!

[Zinegata]

I'm confused as to your point, Z. You are saying either the Taliban genuinely believed the Jews, or some Jews or a grand conspiracy of Jews was responsible for 9/11, or that they didn't believe that and just said it to try and discredit Jewish people in general, correct?

My point is that the Taliban were making wild accusations that it was a Jewish plot - without showing any evidence. But at the same time they're demanding evidence before handing over Bin Laden.

That demonstrates at the minimum that they clearly had a double standard, and that no amount of showing any evidence will actually cause them to hold over Bin Laden.

Not to mention that it is a further demonstration of the general irrationality and insanity of the Taliban regime, which is why the UN unanimously approved the sanctions on them in '99.

If the US could or would not provide any evidence that Bin Laden did in fact orchestrate these attacks, why should they have extradited him? The fact that the Taliban are batshit crazy only really matters if you hand them solid evidence and they ignore it or continue to demand more evidence.

Except of course the UN had already handed them evidence back in '99 and demanded he be turned over; which they ignored and this resulted in the sanctions against them. So the Taliban, by your definition, were already batshit crazy since '99.

Moreover, and one thing that needs to be repeated here: Is that the UN had ALSO ordered the Taliban dismantle the terrorist training camps back in '99. They didn't. And they then pretended that the US didn't also ask for the dismantlement of the terrorist camps in 2001.

So again, saying there is no legal basis for demanding Bin Laden to be handed over OR for the dismantlement of the terrorist camps is false; unless you want to argue that the UN was unanimously just acting out of bloodlust back in '99.

[Zinegata]

My dear, the day I graced you with an insult was the defining moment of your young life, but to me, it was Tuesday.

Actually, I think it was a Wednesday, but since I know you put style above facts this is no surprise.

And really, since you're at the point of demanding that I read the minds of the Taliban leadership to prove that they were rational at a particular point when your entire argument up to this point has rested on "they were too craaaazy to be rational!!", there's really nothing else to do but laugh at you and poke fun at you until you suffer yet another freakout.

Uh, right. You need to read the minds of the Taliban to determine that they aren't being rational during the "negotiations"? When they were saying essentially "We demand evidence but we will accuse the Jews of blowing up the World Trade Center based on NO evidence"

Concession accepted.

So anyways, I've figured out that all the sexual coding in your posts is because, as a sycophant for whatever America does, you feel that you need American Dick to feel complete and whole as a human being. Well, honey, this American wedding tackle ain't going anywhere near your skanky orifices. I guess you'll have to find Stars-and-Stripes Tallywhacker somewhere else, and given your multitude of personality defects, any partner you end up with will be hatefucking seconds in!

LOL. So, what you're saying is that not only do you want my hot body, but you want it as part of a threesome with a flag-waving, chest-thumping, All American?

You can't be selfish man. I'm sure a lot of other people want Captain America's hot body too.

[Bakustra]

My dear, the day I graced you with an insult was the defining moment of your young life, but to me, it was Tuesday.

Actually, I think it was a Wednesday, but since I know you put style above facts this is no surprise.

The fact that you think that this is an adequate response makes my fatuous narcissism seem actually reasonable. It's like watching fish shoot themselves in a barrel.

And really, since you're at the point of demanding that I read the minds of the Taliban leadership to prove that they were rational at a particular point when your entire argument up to this point has rested on "they were too craaaazy to be rational!!", there's really nothing else to do but laugh at you and poke fun at you until you suffer yet another freakout.

Uh, right. You need to read the minds of the Taliban to determine that they aren't being rational during the "negotiations"? When they were saying essentially "We demand evidence but we will accuse the Jews of blowing up the World Trade Center based on NO evidence"

Concession accepted.

Are you familiar with the concept of "propaganda"? Don't even bother answering.

So anyways, I've figured out that all the sexual coding in your posts is because, as a sycophant for whatever America does, you feel that you need American Dick to feel complete and whole as a human being. Well, honey, this American wedding tackle ain't going anywhere near your skanky orifices. I guess you'll have to find Stars-and-Stripes Tallywhacker somewhere else, and given your multitude of personality defects, any partner you end up with will be hatefucking seconds in!

LOL. So, what you're saying is that not only do you want my hot body, but you want it as part of a threesome with a flag-waving, chest-thumping, All American?

You can't be selfish man. I'm sure a lot of other people want Captain America's hot body too.

Ooh la la~

It seems we have someone with some reactionary, fascistic attitudes about patriotism~

Every word you speak, the more repulsive you turn out to be~

[Zinegata]

The fact that you think that this is an adequate response makes my fatuous narcissism seem actually reasonable. It's like watching fish shoot themselves in a barrel.

LOL. In other words, you're completely and totally insecure about yourself and you have to insult others to make yourself feel big. Which is again why you put style over facts.

Are you familiar with the concept of "propaganda"? Don't even bother answering.

So, you admit that the Taliban were, even assuming a rational mindset, are engaging in nothing more than "propaganda" - and hence it was not a genuine peace effort, but rather one to buy time and drum up support?

Again, concession accepted.

Ooh la la~

It seems we have someone with some reactionary, fascistic attitudes about patriotism~

LOL. Paranoia much over the mere mention of Captain America? And here I was thinking you already watched the Avengers.

Every word you speak, the more repulsive you turn out to be~

Yes Bakustra, I know that you hang on to ever word I say. Because you really want my hot body.

[Bakustra]

A hint: when you try to roll with the punches, you're supposed to move away from them, not towards them. In any case, you've succeeded in making a thrice-double ass of yourself, unsurprising since you are one of the greater fucklords I can recall encountering, so I guess I should just leave you to pick up the shattered remnants of your persona- oh, wait, that would require you to have self-awareness.

[Zinegata]

A hint: when you try to roll with the punches, you're supposed to move away from them, not towards them. In any case, you've succeeded in making a thrice-double ass of yourself, unsurprising since you are one of the greater fucklords I can recall encountering, so I guess I should just leave you to pick up the shattered remnants of your persona- oh, wait, that would require you to have self-awareness.

So, no more rebuttals? Two concessions accepted? Thank you for playing.

Also, LOL. Bakustra desperately thinks I want his approval, or of his "friends". That I'm gonna crawl to him and give him my hot body.

Again, Bakustra, if you wanna project (which is mostly what you actually did), do it over in your private little forum. So you can go make yourself feel big that you insult the puny men over in this board who dare object to your narcissistic greatness.

[Alkaloid]

My point is that the Taliban were making wild accusations that it was a Jewish plot - without showing any evidence. But at the same time they're demanding evidence before handing over Bin Laden.

That demonstrates at the minimum that they clearly had a double standard, and that no amount of showing any evidence will actually cause them to hold over Bin Laden.

OK, but were the Taliban blaming a specific person and calling for their arrest or demanding they be turned over to someone for trial. That would be a double standard. Shouting 'IT WAS ALL THE JOOS FAULT' is stupid and racist but not the same as demanding arrest, imprisonment and trial for all Jews based on no evidence.

Except of course the UN had already handed them evidence back in '99 and demanded he be turned over; which they ignored and this resulted in the sanctions against them. So the Taliban, by your definition, were already batshit crazy since '99.

Moreover, and one thing that needs to be repeated here: Is that the UN had ALSO ordered the Taliban dismantle the terrorist training camps back in '99. They didn't. And they then pretended that the US didn't also ask for the dismantlement of the terrorist camps in 2001.

So again, saying there is no legal basis for demanding Bin Laden to be handed over OR for the dismantlement of the terrorist camps is false; unless you want to argue that the UN was unanimously just acting out of bloodlust back in '99.

OK, but evidence of a crime in '99 is not evidence that Bin Laden orchestrated 9/11. That was the reason the US demanded he be turned over, yes? I have no real issue with going in A'stan if you have evidence and the Taliban refuse to acknowledge it, but evidence of a possibly related crime is not evidence in the case of an entirely separate crime.

[Zinegata]

OK, but were the Taliban blaming a specific person and calling for their arrest or demanding they be turned over to someone for trial. That would be a double standard. Shouting 'IT WAS ALL THE JOOS FAULT' is stupid and racist but not the same as demanding arrest, imprisonment and trial for all Jews based on no evidence.

Again, let's rewind. The core of the issue is my contention that the Taliban's offer for peace was bullshit. There are two ways you can look at it.

1) They were acting rationally. In which case, their "logic" went as follows:

The United States accused of Osama Bin Laden of being responsible for 9/11. The Taliban claimed "No evidence! Show us!"

The Taliban accused the Jews (implied to be the state of Israel / Mossad, because they were talking about how the Jews had forewarning about the attack) of being responsible for 9/11, based on NO EVIDENCE.

Again, that's pretty much a double standard, and clearly just a propaganda ploy.

2) They were acting fucknuts insane, like they almost always were. These are the guys who blow up World Heritage Sites for shits and giggles. And do note that they even demanded he be tried in a Sharia Law Court, as opposed to an International Court like The Hague.

In which case, are you really going to trust a fucked up nation that believes in extreme religious laws to do the right thing?

----

Quibbling over "one specific person" (a false claim anyway; both the US and the UN in '99 already named the whole AQ group as needing to be dismantled) vs "a general group of people" (which is implied to be the state of Israel anyway) does not overturn the basic fact that this isn't a consistent position. It's either a double standard (if they were being rational) meant to be a propaganda play, or it's them continuing to be the same bunch of fucknuts who blew up World Heritage Sites.

Either way, cooperation cannot be expected, and their sincerity at wanting "peace" and seeking justice is suspect.

OK, but evidence of a crime in '99 is not evidence that Bin Laden orchestrated 9/11. That was the reason the US demanded he be turned over, yes? I have no real issue with going in A'stan if you have evidence and the Taliban refuse to acknowledge it, but evidence of a possibly related crime is not evidence in the case of an entirely separate crime.

The US actually wanted Bin Laden over a number of terrorist attacks, not just 9/11. So again, claiming that they didn't show any evidence based on 9/11 specifically is a non-starter: Bin Laden was ALREADY wanted by not only the US, but by the UN.

Also, again: The terrorist camps. The UN wanted them shut down in '99. The US was merely repeating this in '01. Both times the Taliban ignored the issue.

In short, even if 9/11 never happened, the US had every right to demand that the Taliban hand over Bin Laden and shut down the terrorist camps, and the Taliban had no right to say "no" unless you're the sort who says "It's okay to violate UN resolutions!".

Now, if you wanna argue "the US shouldn't have gone to war to capture Bin Laden", that's another thing entirely. The legal case for that is much murkier. But saying that the US didn't have the right to demand Bin Laden be turned over is simply false - particularly when you consider that 9/11 might never have happened if the Taliban actually complied back in '99. You don't get to demand evidence when you have an outstanding warrant on your head. And you certainly don't get to demand "I want to choose what kind of trial I will get!"

[PeZook]

They are getting into a position where they can produce a bomb at short notice, doing as much as possible within the letter of the law until there is nothing left that can be done, then they decide whether to go for broke - if they make a bomb before the West attacks, it will not attack, and they 'win'. 20% enriched uranium is used for very few peaceful purposes, totaling a few millions (not billions) of dollars of imports. The real purpose is to obtain a large number of centrifuges which can be used to produce material for a bomb when they are ready to do so.

So, again, international law only matters when it benefits the West?

And you wonder why someone might not trust the West, when people like you are of the opinion treaties should be discarded whenever it's convenient, because blah blah blah spirit of the law?

And why? Because Iran is not a liberal democracy. This is part of their campaign to remain not a liberal democracy. I regard that as a bad thing.

They can remain not a liberal democracy just fine without nukes. You don't need nukes to maintain a dictatorship, as plenty of America's friends prove every day. Iran isn't even particularly brutal, not compared to regimes the US has happily supported in the past.

Better yet: the US did not invade the USSR when they did not have nuclear weapons yet. Could it be, perhaps, because they felt killing an extra ten million people was NOT A REASONABLE PRICE for knocking down a brutal and repressive but stable regime and converting it into a liberal democracy?

You do know democracy imposed at the point of the bayonet doesn't work, right? Because that alone destroys any possible justification for the argument that country X should be kept invadable just in case the West wants to civilize it...

Really?

The reason we are worried about Iran having the capacity to make a bomb, and the alleged reason they want a bomb, is we think they might do Bad Things that we might want to stop, and if they have a bomb we will not be able to. We also worry they might do something crazy with the bomb. If we were dealing with some sort of mega-Belgium in central asia it might raise eyebrows and probably would be protested, but people wouldn't be that worried. Nor would mega-Belgium have much reason to fear being attacked to prompt it to make a bomb, at least not by the West.

What could Iran possibly do that will be worth an invasion and the carnage and misery it will cause? You're saying here Iran shouldn't get nuclear technology because it might make it impossible for America to invade them ; So I'm asking what possible reason Iran might give you for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians, as a war and occupation inevitably will?

Incidentally, statements like "don't do X, because we want to be able to easily invade you in the future" are precisely what makes nation states want to do X even more. It's pretty funny you don't see that this is a perfectly rational response to such statements

Of course, Iran did sign the NPT and should follow its obligations, so I don't think they should be making nukes ; The problem is, of course, that I also think it's not worth murdering enormous amounts of people to enforce this. If Pakistan, who can't even control parts of their own state apparatus, did not actually do "something crazy with the bomb", I don't think Iran of all things should worry you, anyways.

The root cause of the problem is that Iran is a nutty quasi-dictatorship that publicly hangs gays and political dissenters from cranes mounted to the back of trucks.

Some states in the US also have the death penalty, and execute innocent people every year ; Would it be justified for Space UN to invade and wreck your nation to stop it? Why the hell not?