Iranian protestors in frount of French embassy.

[Plane]

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/anti-charlie-hebdo-protests-in-iran-1421697477-slideshow/





It is apparent that few Iranians know what a French Flag looks like.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is really a dumb statement.

Anyone who has spent five minutes in France knows what the French tricolor looks like: the French are very proud of their flag and typically you will see it about fifty times on a trip from Charles DeGaulle Airport to Paris, even if you take the Metro. There are at least as many French flags per Frenchman being proudly displayed in France as there are American flags in the US.

The picture posted here was circulated to piss off Americans and Jews.
Iranians have a right to be pissed off at the West. Their money is worth less than half of what it was worth 3 years ago, and their families in Iran are suffering because of the many sanctions that the US and the Europeans have put on them.

While I agree that Iran having a nuclear weapon is a bad thing, and perhaps sanctions are required, I can still understand why Iranians would be pissed off.

[Plane]

  These are Iranians protesting Charlie Ebdo in the street in front of the French Embassy in Iran.

    They either do not know what a French flag looks like , or they think that the French are subject to the USA and Israel.

      I don't really expect the Iranians to be well informed, but the flag of France?

       They could look on the embassy and see a sample.





       Probably a failure of planning , they have plenty of burning flags but not plenty of French ones, they must have brought what they had because the protest of France was so impromptu.

[Plane]

  While I agree that Iran having a nuclear weapon is a bad thing, and perhaps sanctions are required, I can still understand why Iranians would be pissed off.

  Is there a more effective or otherwise better choice to an embargo?

    I think they are foolish to want an A- bomb, a few a-bombs will be useless to them , a lot of a-bombs will be worse than useless.

     You have to wonder at such large scale foolishness.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I disagree. If North Korea did not have nukes, they would have been destabilized long ago. Nuclear weapons mean that other countries, especially this one, will be much more wary of messing with you.

The Shah signed the non nuclear arms agreement, anyway. Why should it be binding on this government?

I can see why Iranians would want to have some nuclear weapons. I agree that the more countries have them, the more dangerous a place the world becomes.

The only thing that can stop a Bad Country with a nuclear weapon, is a Good Country with a nuclear weapon. That would be another way to phrase it.

[Plane]

The only thing that can stop a Bad Country with a nuclear weapon, is a Good Country with a nuclear weapon. That would be another way to phrase it.

    You think the sanction and opprobrium of many nations is not adequate to discourage them?

     Iran is no good country to have an A-bomb, If they have a dozen Saudi Arabia will feel the need for two dozen.

      North Korea does not deserve the stability it has , and it has had this stability for fifty years without an a-bomb, with the A-bomb they deserve respect?

       Does North Korea respect all of the countries that have more than a thousand a-bombs each?

       They want respect so badly that they are spending away all hope of being respectable to get it , and they don't even realize that they do not respect the nations that are ahead of them on that path.

       If sanctions are enough we may eventually embargo our way to a world with few nukes, if not we do need the good countries to keep ready with a nuclear reprisal.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I question all use of the word "deserve".  North Korea has only been a rather minor pain in the ass.  Has North Korea driven millions of people from their countries and their homes, as the Iraq War has?  Did North Korea flatten whole neighborhoods of civilians as the US did in Panama City?

Having the bomb has clearly benefited the DPRK to stay in power. I agree that the Kim Dynasty is awful, but from their point of view, having the bomb has worked.

If we are going to decide who gets a bomb as a popularity contest, I bet that Israel would have every bit as many "take the bomb away from them" votes as Iran would have "don't let them have a bomb" votes. And I imagine Pakistan would have them both beat.

The fact is, the Shah's government may have voted against having a bomb, but I fail to see how that obligates the current government to follow along.

We would be better off if NO ONE had the bomb.  That is a fact.

[Plane]

We would be better off if NO ONE had the bomb.  That is a fact.

I probably would never have been alive, because my Father was quite prepared to die young.

North Korea has consent of the governed by forcing them to consent, that government deserves no respect at all.

    Now before they had the bomb , they got no respect , so now that they have the bomb everyone thinks they are   simpleminded and cruel. They did not gain a single thing.

    By the way , what do we know about the failsafe systems on these bombs?  If those bombs are as dependable as their rockets they could explode in storage.

[Christians4LessGvt]

If North Korea did not have nukes, they would have been destabilized long ago.

and that would have been a good thing!

[Xavier_Onassis]

At NO POINT has ANY country ever put whether it should have nuclear weapons to a vote of the citizens. In every case, the government decided without the consent of the citizens to build or buy nuclear weapons.

It was not actually necessary for the US to invade Japan. By August of 1945, there were practically no soldiers left.

Besides, I did not say that no country should never have had nuclear weapons, I said it would be better NOW of no one had them. That is a major difference.