Probably best to avoid the obvious elephant in the room ... especially when it pulls the rug out from a load of bollox ...
It's an impossible question to answer. What's clear is that the international community - including the UN who as you know I love and adore - really doesn't trust Iran with them, which is what led to sanctions and then the deal under Obama in the first place. The latest IAEA report revealed, to the surprise of no one with half a brain cell, that Iran was never in compliance with that deal's terms and continued enriching uranium in undeclared secret facilities. It's such a vast country with such a deeply embedded secret police, it's pretty easy to hide these things from a dozen inspectors with a minivan and clipboards. Iran getting the bomb will lead to a regional arms race. The Saudis will be next, the Egypt, then the other Gulf States...where does it end?
@brb your take on this is very close to what has been Naftali Bennett's philosophy. He's widely regarded as Netanyahu's main opponent. He's been arguing for months that Israel should stop focusing on Gaza and Lebanon and go for the snake's head, Iran.
Exactly. This is the big question, why should some countries be allowed them and others not? Ahh some might say but those that have them will never use them whilst the bad ones will. I might point at at this time that America are (so far) the only country that has. Should we ban them from having them?
Something else I've made clear in the past, Netty along with any other world leader should be held to account for their actions. Sadly war crimes is a part of war, not justifying it, just a horrible reality. I think there's more chance of Netty coping a bullet though than a court appearance.
Absolutely we should and it makes my blood boil when I hear America lecturing anyone about it. But who's going to disarm them? Fosse? That's the problem, this really is a zero sum all or nothing game. Either everyone has them, or no one does. Once some countries have them, the choice is simple: do we seek to limit their spread as much as possible, or give in and purposefully 'level the playing field' by giving them to everyone? I personally can't see a version of the world where an increase in nuclear weapons makes it a better place. And I'd say that about a democracy, let alone a tyrannous bigoted regime.
It's not an elephant for me bro, I have enough job keeping up with it all as it is. All I know about the West Bank is it has stone throwers who catch the occasional stray bullet.
Netanyahu should be forced to move to Cornwall and accompany Ponkie on his country rambles, listening to him talk and pontificate about the middle east (Netanyahu would be gagged and unable to reply). This will continue until Netanyahu either dies or jumps off a cliff, the latter being a greater likelihood.
Seriously? ... OK... in a nutshell... if Israel ceased it's illegal land grabs and expansion, Irans support for every and any opposition to Israeli ambition on that front would be unnecessary...
Netty is going to hell, don't worry about that bruv. This is the problem with having aging leaders, they are too old to care, so accountability becomes null and void.
Ok I'll level with you. Based on your theory, kindly explain Iran's deep involvement in the civil wars that ravaged Sudan, Yemen and Syria. What have those got to do with Israeli settlements?
...well apart from the fact that stone throwing should be unnecessary because Israeli presence there is illegal under International law in the first place ... but just ignore that if it disrupts your narrative
