hypochondriac

Thought you'd stumbled off to watch the telly? Run along now.

Where did they say that? Regime change in Iran is potentially a very good thing. For a start they don't have the clannish history of Iraq. I hope there is regime change for the peoe of Iran and I hope it's an improvement on what they have now.

Just a load of nonsense and misrepresentation. You're better off wandering off to watch the telly.

I'd favour regime change. I expect that will likely happen from within. I would consider it very unlikely at the moment that we are going to see American troops on the ground in Iran.

Limited strikes on nuclear facilities to prevent development of nuclear weapons is not comparable to Iraq. If we see boots on the ground from the West and decades of occupation then I'll likely change my mind.

I just think it's a couple of posters on here who fancy an argument. No one I've ever met in real life thinks it would be a good idea for Iran to get nuclear weapons.

I'm saying that in my opinion there is a risk that they would use them or that they could fall into the wrong hands that is unacceptable to me. My guess is you're being deliberately obtuse for some reason and pretending you don't know what I've said.

I didn't say I don't think they will use them. Goodness me.

I'd prefer that no countries had nuclear weapons but if there has to be some who have them then clearly there are some countries you would be more keen than others to not have them. I'm not sure why you'd consider that a controversial opinion.

More likely than many other countries of course. Due to a number of factors some unrelated to Islam-but primarily because they are a brutal extremist regime who are led by people who believe in a hyper exteme version of Islam.

Of course it's preferable that no one has one. Being cool with literally any country in the world having one who fancies it is a frankly bizarre opinion and I'm not sure I believe you genuinely hold that opinion in a hypothetical scenario where that actually was a thing.

No. I never said more likely than not.

It's really not. Unfortunately you're unable to understand a very obvious point. I consider it more likely that some countries will use a nuclear weapon or that a nuclear weapon should fall into the hands of someone else than others. Nowhere have I ever said that Iran would definitely use a nuclear weapon as a cast iron certainty. That would be an insane thing to say.

Yeah my opinion of that view is it's batshit insane.

I've never said Iran WILL use a nuke if they have one. And you accuse me of failing to understand the points you make.

That's a valid concern but not likely to happen in my opinion. It would be a really bad idea abd woukd probably be stopped before it happened if it were attempted. I don't understand the logic of "they are a sovereign nation with every right to defend themselves." Using that, should every nation on Earth get a nuke if they fancy one in case they are attacked?

My preference is for America and indeed every country to not have nuclear weapons. Unfortunately that's unlikely to happen.

My preference would be that no one has nuclear weapons but I'd certainly not be advocating for anyone else to get more. In particular a brutal, unstable Islamist extremist regime who thinks nothing of murdering people in service of their ideology.

Can you quote where I said that?

It's an opinion that juche ideology differs greatly from suffi extremist interpretations from Islam? That the ideologies that drive them mean that their risk of using a nuclear weapon won't be different? That there isn't plenty of documented evidence of jihad is being willing to destroy themselves and their things in service of their ideology because they believe that their earthly body is temporary and they are going to end up in heaven? Which part of that is opinion?

But quite prepared to dismiss the iaea report and believe brutal Islamist dictatorships that murder children.

No serious attempt to engage on the clear differences I outlined then? Just blindly asserting that they can be compared despite the clear differences?

Because if you don't agree with Israel or the US striking to prevent nukes then that's de facto support for Iran developing nuclear weapons.

On this issue it's a clear binary choice between the two.

No. Extremist Islamism as practised by Sunnis is something entirely different from the political ideology of juche which is essentially about being left alone. Kin Jong Un has shown on many occasions that his priority is the continued survival of his regime. Not so for many extremist Islamic nutters where there will be some who would be quite happy to have their earthly body destroyed in order to destroy Israel because they are off to meet a bunch of virgins in heaven. It's absolutely insane that any sensible Westerners would advocate for a country like Iran to obtain nukes.