visaord

How come the idea of a nuclear deterrent is never mentioned when discussing Iran?

It seems obvious that but one nuclear warhead would at least partly safeguard Iran from being attacked by the fine and peace-loving nations Israel (400+ nukes) and the United States (10 000+ nukes). The idea that the Iranians would produce a nuke to use offensively in a vain and ultimately suicidal attempt to 'wipe Israel off the map' is infantile at best and defies all reasoning, unless you are a good brainwashed, patriotic American or Israeli that is, in which case you happily believe that anyone who gets on their knees five times a day is a merry suicide bomber, ready to get into the nearest commuter plane and fly it into your suburban villa just because he can?t stand your freedom to choose between 400 brands of breakfast cereal and dozens of antidepressants.

The scare is certainly real to an extent. Iran, The US and Israel all know that an Iranian nuclear deterrent would make the conquest of the fairly well functioning democracy (considering previous US involvement in overthrowing adversaries to replace with puppet dictators) more of a hassle, possibly enough of a hassle to ... not attack?

But here we go, once again. In lovely New Speak terms, Iran is supporting ?terrorists? by exporting weapons to ?radical insurgents? in the ?liberated? paradise that is Iraq 2008.

Never mind the fact that The U.S of A is the leading weapons exporter in the world by far, not hesitating to make lucrative deals with such fine and well functioning states as Chad, Angola, Ethiopia and Colombia along with a dozen other war zones, all happily wasting their scarce monetary resources on more efficient ways of killing...Whoever is rude enough to still be alive.  

Let?s attack Iran before it?s too late! Soon they might be able to defend themselves in a meaningful way, and that is the fear of the neo-cons and Zionists pulling the strings.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137521.ece

 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/61001888/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html

Jag upptackte just att jag ar kund hos en av varldens mest patetiska banker. Nej Skandiabanken, jag ar inget partydjur, jag ar ingen balkongsoftare, ingen hip-hopare och inte nan forbannad tuggare. Jag har inget intresse av att vara bling, varken nu eller I framtiden. Hur jag lyckas kanna mig gammal vid 23 ars alder att ett mysterium. Men efter statliga kampanjer som ?knark ar bajs? och idiotiska pensionssparar-jippon som Skandiabankens digitala missfoster ?Spara4life? borjar jag nastan hoppas att mitt har faller av snart. For det kanske ar det enda sattet att bibehalla nagon slags mansklig vardighet I motsats till att idiotforklaras av statliga institutioners och storforetags imbecilla stravan att identifiera sig med en ungomdskultur som inte ens tillhor ungdomen. Nej, tro inte heller att jag har nagot intresse av att identifiera mig med en foraldrageneration som ar sa desperat att na sina barn att de sanker sin intellektuella niva och darmed samhallets intellektuella niva till sandladan, dar vi kollektivt kan kasta sand pa varandra tillsammans med mindre kvallstidningar och modemagasin under de stora trendsattarnas vakande moderliga ogon. Som, likt en horribelt deformerad narcissus, beundrande speglar sig I sin egen utdragna undergang. Jag forvantar mig en javla massa mer 'bang', 'boom' och 'krasch' an jag forvantar mig bling vid min eventuella 65-arsdag om vi inte inser att bling ar den eviga orsaken till 'bang', 'boom' och 'krasch'.