You're right rob. Even Iran admits their goal is not peaceful. I guess everyone knows better than them, huh?

"The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights," Ahmadinejad said. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi shrugged off the possibility of sanctions, telling state-run television that Iran "will find a way to avoid pressure eventually,"

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060831/D8JRDG900.html

"Sanctions cannot dissuade the Iranian nation from achieving our lofty goals of progress. So it's better for Europe to be independent (of the U.S.) in decision-making and to settle problems through negotiations," Ahmadinejad said Wednesday, according to state-run television.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060830/D8JR0SQG0.html

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w

I reiterate. Why does Israel need 100 to 400 nuclear weapons?

Chateauroux,

I doubt Israel has that many nucs but there's no proof otherwise so that's what we have to go on. One reason, perhaps often overlooked, is it buys the protection of other nations. The united states "perhaps other super powers" would have to attempt to protect any and all friendly nations that have the weapon. If any of those nations should fall to an unfriendly nation, so would it's nukes, that could be real bad news. At this moment in time, it seems that most nations that have the weapon are trustworthy. Someday that will change but in the mean time all the countrys that have these weapons cannot fall to a rogue nation. I understand that these weapons are secure but a rogue nation just in having them would present a real severe situation.

Another reason, self preservation and mutual destruction. Not all nukes are created equal, just like with other weapons there are big ones and small ones and lets not forget, long reaching ones.

Israel has those weapons for the same exact reason that any other country has them. The count makes no difference, one is as bad as a hundred if it falls in your back yard

I didn't believe it either when Israel told Eisenhower their nuke program was for peaceful purposes. Now they have 400 of the non-peaceful nukes. But who knows? Pakistan hasn't launched at India yet. And there are some crazy fuggers in Pakistan.

if Iran tries something I am sure that the world will not sit by on this one, unlike in Iraq. of course Saddam would have liked to beat the crap out of Iran for the Iran-Iraq war in the eighties, but that chance has gone out the door for him. this time the world has proof that Iran is not keeping their word and other nations security is threatened.

__________________
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum viditur.

You realize, of course, if President Musharraf of Pakistan was assassinated, the Muslims would have their Bomb. As a matter of fact, a number of them. And there is NOTHING the West could do about it.

From rob's article (#5) :

To those who say that Iran wants to destroy Israel...

If you took Ahmadinejad's "wipe the Zionists off the map" speech at face value, why would you disbelieve him now, when he says that Iran is not a threat to Israel ? What made his first speech more credible than this one ?

Maybe because he is supporting a group which has stated they want to "push Israel into the sea." Nasrallah said that he wished all the Jews would come to Israel so it would be easier to kill them all. Perhaps his actions speak louder than words. You can counter that it is all about land and not religion, but not when you look at the words spoken by Nasrallah.

Well, the American people believed Shrub's WMD speech on Iraq, and Condi's mushroom cloud. So I'd say they are no more credible than Ahmadinejad.