May 18, 2010 7:37:46 PM cite

now every time i read any ones thoughts on this or hear them they are just not seeing the point i think the point is that the iranian leader on national TV in a intervew with a FBI reporter declared WAR on the u.s and if they hade a bomb of equal power or grater power to out atomic bomb would use it on the u.s think of it this way you r giving a loaded gun to some one who is at war with u and u stand there with no protection and watch him pull the triger as it is pointing at you so if we let them have a nuclear bomb they will use it on us

by theatombom

Jun 2, 2008 11:40:40 AM cite

... But it's been proven wrong. First, there is no Iranian nuclear bomb. Second, if there was, the bomb would be equally as dangerous as ours or the French's or the Brits... It's who's got their finger on the button that makes the bomb dangerous for other people. People freak out saying ... Bush is a piece of lying shit!... blah blah blah!! (pray continue and fill in the blanks, the list is big!), I've never heard a more whiny, worthless, panty-waist, sissy generation of people in my life!! If you ask me, I think this whole world is in sore need of a nuclear enema!! Bush is the least of anyone's worries as far as who has the button finger. Iran's insane little nazi leader is far scarier. Maybe he will be the one to administer the enema!

by schmiggins

Jun 1, 2007 5:17:54 AM cite

Check out 1. http://technorati.com/tag/Seymour%20Hersh ----- check out 2. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda/ ------ 3. since you are German speaking and probably as respectful concerning Helmut Schmidt as I am: http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2006/04/22/555507.html

by __anon_70489252

May 31, 2007 3:03:41 AM cite

Because if something went wrong while experimenting, they could blow up the whole fu**in' oil in the south (that USA and England can't wait to control) - that's why it's such a threat!

by __anon_70489252

Sep 13, 2006 8:02:17 PM cite

A bomb is a bomb, but the United States government tries to instill a fear in the American psyche about Iran possibly developing a nuclear bomb, while convienently avoiding our huge military capability and how THAT may be perceived by other nations.

by Deannahawk

Sep 10, 2006 3:10:21 AM cite

stupid question. think about it. the consequences on your life and your freedom. would you want to jeopardize it?

by Xavier Morgan

Sep 9, 2006 4:07:51 PM cite

Any nuclear bomb is too bad. Any new one is worse, no matter where it's build. We should work for all countries to get rid of their nuclear bombs and even all weapons. No nuclear bomb is justifiable. The less bombs are on earth, the less other nations can ask: Why you and not me?

by alfgiebler

Sep 9, 2006 12:05:00 PM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: Why they consider it? It is not considered more dangerous, because the bomb is only an object, which is used by people, politicians and militarists. The bomb is only a dead object, and the most dangerous is the man. This is a dangerous toy in hands of politicians. I don’t know, only a small group of people can believe that an Iraqi bomb is more dangerous than an American one. This is what propaganda does, what particular circles, newspapers, magazines say, which are interested in political success of America or England, in the dominance, so to speak, of the great civilized white world over other countries. It is possible, to justify every violence. People have a tongue to tell lies. Yet I believe that many thousands of people realise that it is a lie, and that the bomb in America and France or other countries is as dangerous as the bomb in Iraq. The atom, which was discovered by a man for a benefit of human beings, is a toy in the hands of fools, who think that they can get more power with it. But in reality they can let the ship explode on which they sail. It is very dangerous.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 12:05:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: I do not know exactly the difference between an Iranian, American or Israeli Nuclear bomb. I think that nobody has the right to blame Iran for owning nuclear bomb but at the same time Israel is ignored. However, I believe that it would be really dangerous when people concentrate on building nuclear bombs and neglect the industry, consequently that would result poverty and underdevelopment. I think sometimes of the Soviet Union which had underdeveloped industry, but its military industries were very progressive. "Kastoria Deskaneh" was talking about military monster in the Soviet Union, so I am afraid of being other monsters in other new countries, where nuclear bomb is more important than developing people.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 12:05:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: An Iranian nuclear bomb is not more dangerous. I think that a country like the United States and a country like Iran are equally fanatical and equally dangerous. In my opinion any kind of fanatism is dangerous. The fact, that the United States believe to have a right to guard the world and play the guardians of global stability, does not make the world more safe. I think, this country doesn´t have any right to posess a bomb that can destroy entire planet. Nor do the Jewish or the French have a right to possess weapons that can destroy entire human race. I think, the balance they pretend to create is not really a balance. Nobody has a right to possess weapons that can destroy entire human race.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 12:05:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 12:05:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: They are all as dangerous as each other, because they are at the behest of unstable humans. What is interesting to me is the assumption that somebody has been given the power to decide whether or not a optimum instrument of destruction can be released. I find it more interesting for us to decide why it was necessary at all for there to be any nuclear bombs. Why is it that we – why do we feel it necessary as part of our so-called civilization to have such optimum and extreme weapon of destruction at our disposal, whether you are American, Israeli, French, or Iranian, whoever. It seems to me that the nuclear bomb is the ultimate weapon or instrument of persuasion. Once you have it, the threat of it makes people take you seriously, so then you say, now I require this or I require that, if you have the nuclear bomb, the threat of our unstable humanity releasing this weapon of destruction, forces people to take your requests, or your threats, or your promises, far more seriously. But I do think it’s a terrible indictment that we should have them at all.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 12:05:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: That’s an interesting question, interesting question. No, it is no more dangerous than any other bomb. Nuclear bomb is a bomb able to destroy incredible amount of life both human, animal, and plant and mineral world for times and times to come. And why we keep having it? It’s really a mystery for all of us. At least I hope that it’s for you as it is for me and for the rest of the world. And it baffles my mind why we’re allowing it to be around us until today, 2006. Did you know that you and I we call for being civilized people? Is civilization the greatest show beneath nuclear bomb? I don’t care if it is American, Canadian, Brazilian, German, French or Israeli or Iranian or Indian or Pakistani or Chinese. It’s still a bomb and it should not be amongst us. So I entrust you with the responsibility to help getting rid of it. [coughs] Wolfgang, did you hear my answer? I pray to the Great One that it made sense to you.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 12:05:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: This is a very timely and important question and I really appreciate the fact that we are discussing this today, because the United States is trying to use the script that it used for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 for a possible war on Iran. They are just substituting the letter n for the letter q in many of the speeches and documents that were used to sell us that illegal and unjust war. And so, we see hysteria really being manufactured very consciously by political elites, particularly in the United States, and then recycled uncritically by a subservient establishment press that says Iran is a tremendous threat to the world, because of its development of nuclear technology. Now, the interesting this is that Iran is at least five to ten years away from being able to develop a single nuclear weapon, perhaps longer given the difficulty of setting up a cascade of centrifuges that’s necessary for enriching uranium to the grade that it can be used to make weapons-grade uranium, let alone develop the technology for the device itself and then the delivery of such a device. But, even if one grants that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon and could achieve construction of one in the next five to ten years, we are meant to ignore the fact that Israel -– it has more than 200 nuclear weapons today and is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and also, continues to deny its nuclear program and allows no inspection of its nuclear programs. Nothing is ever said about that. The reality is the concern about Iran, as a concern about a state which is not aligned with US interests. When Iran was under the Shah and was suppressing its own population, the US actually helped it develop nuclear technology.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 12:05:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 12:05:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: That’s a very good question, and this is really about the double standards in foreign policy or the absence of a foreign policy, which would say that it is okay for the Israeli or the French or the Americans to have nuclear bombs, that it is okay for President Bush to go to India and talk about promoting nuclear technology and providing nuclear technology to India, despite it’s not being a member of the non-nuclear proliferation treaty, in spite of India defying the treaties and doing the nuclear test. At the same time, the whole furor around Korea, North Korea, or Iran having nuclear bomb, that’s seen as not being okay. But basically the message that we are then sending is the countries like India or Israel are the brown sahibs, that it is okay for them to do it, that they are most responsible citizens of the world and that’s again a big lie. It is buying into this whole concept that Bush has promoted of Islamic fascism that you think that these countries are not okay. These countries are okay to have nuclear technology. I think the question that confronts us all is that when can we as humanity in one unified voice basically be able to say that this is a technology, which is detrimental for us, which is detrimental for our environment, which is putting each one of us at risk, that we cannot put the threads of this technology across just our borders. It affects each one of us. And instead of pointing fingers and looking at which countries are more dangerous and which countries are more responsible to handle this technology, given all the evidence that is in, given the incidents that have taken place, like places in Chenoa, it is time to be able to say no, no to nuclear bombs and no to nuclear technology for ourselves, for our future generations.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 12:05:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: Again, this question really is symptomatic supposed by whom. We live in a politics of fear and distrust when we are living an ego-centric kind of culture that has a distrust of the other, that objectifies the other and alienates the other, and that estrangement is always a politics of fear and suspicion and arrogance. And, so, the question is calling into my all of these issues. Obviously, a nuclear bomb in an Iranian hands and setting is inherently no more dangerous than an American bomb or French or Israeli or any other bomb. But, the question is, who is holding the bomb and who is looking at the other? And, so, in this politics, culture, fear and suspicion and alienation of the other, we are going to always demonize the other antecedently. And, I think that’s really what this question is is opening up which is the demonization of the other that comes inherently in an ego-mental and ego-centric form of politics. If you can enter into a dialogic and integral form of political life and cultural life where we see ourselves and the other and know automatically, objectify and estrange the other with suspicion in a hierarchical way is a new question in terms of equity and equality across the borders of our worlds and our views. And, I think that was very interesting to me about this question.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 12:05:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: An Iranian nuclear bomb is not more dangerous than an American, Israeli, or French bomb. All nuclear bombs are dangerous. And they pose an inherent threat to all forms of life on this planet. The way that we frame the other to create the face of the other is really a propaganda tool to make it seem as if nuclear bomb in the hands of the other is inherently more dangerous than our having nuclear bombs. So it is really the way that we fashion the thinking of our own citizens to demonize governments and citizens of other countries that have access to potential of creating nuclear bombs that creates that consciousness of fear to make it seem as if it's all right for us to have nuclear bombs and for others not to. But the more fundamental question is, should we have nuclear bombs at all? And the rational answer is that no one, no country, should have nuclear bombs. The danger here is that nuclear weaponry used to be a weapon to create a check and balance, but that is not true anymore. So our ability to have nuclear weapons as a weapon of last resort are now seeing policies changing to creating ways of incorporating them as core to our [audio ends].

by Audrey Kitagawa