OK. I'll say it. Yes, I'd rather risk Iran having nukes than

[polly7]

118. You should probably do a search for posts where this same sentiment has

been expressed here in the past. There are plenty. Not everyone agrees with the hypocrisy of nuclear-armed and aggressive nations posturing to attack those with none and I personally don't believe it has anything at all to do with having nukes. Iran has been in the PNAC cross-hairs all along. But it does seem the only way not to be attacked or invaded in the ME is to have a strong defense. Although:

Iran's Khamenei Calls for 'Nuclear Free Middle East'

Published on Thursday, August 30, 2012 by Common Dreams

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/30-4

Supreme leader of Iran says nuclear weapons are "great sin" as Israel's Netanyahu calls meeting of Non-Alligned Movement a "disgrace"

- Common Dreams staff

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday reiterated the country's position that it has no desire for nuclear weapons, calling atomic weapons a "great sin" and renewing the call for a nuclear-free Middle East.


Iran's motto is "Nuclear energy for all and nuclear weapons for none," Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday. (Photo credit: AP)
Speaking to leaders at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran, Khamenei said that Iran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), would continue to defend its right to develop a peaceful nuclear program.

"I stress that the Islamic Republic has never been after nuclear weapons and that it will never give up the right of its people to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” Khamenei said.

“Iran considers the use of nuclear, chemical and similar weapons as a great and unforgivable sin," he continued. "We proposed the idea of ‘Middle East free of nuclear weapons’ and we are committed to it.”